Archive | January 29th, 2012

Serb’s Boycott Jolie’s Propaganda Film


Serbs Say: Boycott Angelina Jolie’s “IN THE LAND OF BLOOD AND HONEY”?


Sir Vojislav Milosevic, Director, Center for Counter-Terrorism&World Peace

Who Really Ordered The Creation Of “IN THE LAND OF BLOOD AND HONEY”?

Saudi Arabia sponsored the movie and Angelina with $10 million.

Oscar-winning producer Graham King’s GK Films has announced that Oscar-winning actress Angelina Jolie will make her feature film directorial debut with a love story set during the Bosnian war.

Based on an original screenplay by Jolie, the ambitious story follows a Serbian man and a Bosnian woman who meet on the eve of the war, and the effect that the war has on their relationship. Angelina had two personal advisers on the screenplay:

Google – Veterans Today –

General Wesley Clark, NATO commander who orchestrated 78 days bombing campaign on Serbia & Montenegro, year 1999, and  Richard Holbrook, who worked on recognition of terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army, who were put on the list of the world’s most dangerous terrorist organizations by State Department.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Documentary about how Albanians form Brooklyn, New York, are smuggling weapons form the USA to Kosovo via Albania. It also shows that former Clinton administration officials such as Richard Holbrooke and former presidential candidate / NATO supreme commander General Wesley Clark, support The KLA an independence of Kosovo from Serbia.

Richard Holbrooke (U.S. Special Envoy) with the KLA terrorists

The veteran diplomat had been taken to the Washington hospital, after collapsing during a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Dec. 2010. Soon after, he died.

War and drugs: Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrook, Florin Krasniqi who smuggling weapons form the USA to Kosovo via Albania.

Angelina Jolie’s directorial debut about a love story between a Serbian policeman and his rape victim has met with sharp criticism among Bosnian Serbs who said the work was biased and anti-Serb.

The movie “In the Land of Blood and Honey” set during the 1992-95 Balkan war has received critical acclaim in the US.

The film is slated to be premiered in Serbia and the Serb-populated part of Bosnia in May, and Jolie has said she would like to attend the screening.

Authorities have turned down a request by some war veterans’ organisations to ban the film.

A. Jolie – who is a goodwill ambassador for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees – has also been exposed to a barrage of criticism from the press and calls for a boycott to “show her she isn’t wolcome“ in the country.

Vecernje Novosti (daily news) : Angelina arrogantly refuses to even consider the real story about Romeo and Juliet from Sarajevo, the real couple murdered on May 19th, 1993. His name was Bosko Brkic, he was Serbian. Her name is Admira Ismic, she was Bosnian.

They were both killed when they tried to escape from the Muslim part of Sarajevo on Vrbanja bridge to the Serbian part of the city. They also add the movie In The Land of Blood and Honey states there was 300,000 Bosnians killed, and 50,000 Bosnian women raped, and that it shows only victims on Bosnian side.

At the end of the movie, Angelina present, so called “the facts” about the Muslim’s females who were raped during the civil war, and she put the figure of 50.000 !!!??? Bosnian Foreign Minister, at that time, Haris Silajdzic, claimed the same (see the documentary) fake facts.

He talked about the “rape camps, in which 40.000 -60.000 women are raped and are being raped while we are speaking now”. Pure lie: Bosnian Muslim government used inflamed numbers in order to provoke US military attacks on Serbs. And they did.

Newsweek reporter Alexandra Stiegelmayer used the numbers 30.000-50.000, but acknowledge  she had no evidence to back up claim.

Draft report of EU talked about 20.000 rapes on all 3 sides in the war: Muslim, Serb and Croat side.

But, after an exhausted investigation the UN concluded that 2.400 rapes have been committed by all 3 sides in Bosnia conflict.

Angelina Jolie, listen and read carefully: 2.400 rapes on all 3 sides in Bosnian conflict. You are good will UN ambassador – talk to them, ask for the real facts.

Serbian websites have been flooded with pictures allegedly showing Jolie in pornographic acts before she became a celebrity. The pictures are reportedly accompanied with comments like “once a prostitute – always a prostitute”.

Internationally acclaimed Serbian film director Emir Kusturica has declined to comment on Jolie’s film, calling her a „propagandist“ not a filmmaker.

Emir Kusturica says that he would never invite Angelina Jolie to the festival Kustendorf, saying: She belongs to the cinematography which is actually a hidden propaganda. She came here to make a movie only about Bosnian victims, then the question is – why not about Serbs? That has nothing to do with the reality, she simply knows nothing about our problem.

Emir Kusturica

Angelina Jolie‘s directorial debut In The Land of Blood and Honey could become one of the most controversial movies this year. Press wrote about this movie, we all know the plot, we all know the story. But…do we really?

And that’s where the story starts. I’m about to make this report a little bit personal, just by saying that normal people live in a little European country Serbia. Why am I writing this? Well, simply because I have a lot of friends there, and when we talked about Jolie’s movie I was quite surprised that – they’re about to boycott it.

But why, I asked, the movie stars some famous Serbian actors, you should be happy that a big star like Angelina Jolie is behind the whole thing! Happy with what – they asked – once again we’re the bad guys who rape and kill the poor Muslims. She did not even try to make a movie based on the historical facts, and you call that professionalism? You call that a big directorial debut of a big Hollywood star? It’s not even an original anti-Serbian propaganda and people out here are totally against this movie.

The fact is that Angelina Jolie now tries to give the political context to the movie in American media, but she goes even further – right after the premiere of In the Land of Blood and Honey, in which Serbs were represented as killers and rapists, actress and director announced the action against the “genocidal creation” Republic Srpska.

Petar Djokic, Minister of Labour, Veterans and Disability Protection of Republika Srpska, says that it is clear the whole thing is the part of a new attack on Republika Srpska. Only with a new approach:

Angelina continues an attack on us. Starting with the OHR and other international organizations, their aim was always to bust the RS, and even to abolish it. And now that they have not succeeded, they want to start another war – through art. Hollywood movie should be animated by the world public and that the Serbs are again on a pillar of shame. How is it possible that the Serbs in their own home are criminals and aggressors? It is obvious that Angelina has received a lot of money to do it, it’s all being orchestrated! All of this was commissioned by extreme Islamic policies, that the Serbs would be displayed, normally, like criminals, killers, murderers and rapists. And that it would be presented that the only victims are Muslims, which is a total lie.

And, some comments on Angelina’s work:


It is completely true, and if Angelina Jolie comes toSerbia, i will be there to protest. Hey, it is maybe difficult to believe, but whatever happened inBosniaandCroatiaduring the 90′s was really tragic, and yes Serbs were responsible for war crimes, but for god sake, it was war and we weren’t the only one. Serbs were also killed, massacred, raped, but no one cares about the Serbian victims. Instead, it is only Serbs, the bad guys. We are not monsters, animals, we are human beings and we want to be treated as such, we are not mad animals, killers, we are people like everybody on this planet. Angelina Jolie has no right to film a movie like this, filled with stereotypes, and glorifying one side while spitting in the face of the other, while wrongly telling the facts.


I just can’t believe that someone wrote something like this! Thank you very much! And, yes, we are humans believed it or not! Our anger is a product of political games leaded by USA, to make us war criminals! I just can’t figure out one thing – Americahate Islamic people all over the world, but only here, in Bosnia, they are on Muslim side… They did not commit any crime! I’m Serb from Bosnia, and they killed every single man in my village including a baby from 15 months and including my grandmother (with cutting her head off)! READ THIS ANGELINA AND SHAME ON YOU! You are represented as a good person, adopting children, yeah right, if you really are a good person, you wouldn’t talked about something that you don’t known, because that is very painful issue for all Serbs from the RS! Greetings to the journalist fromSarajevo!


She should stick to her photo modeling …it’s the only thing she’s good at. Also, if you are going to make a movie that has smth to do with our history, perhaps you should first open a book and learn smth about it. Shame on you! There are a lot of Serbian families inBosniawhose children, husbands, wives, mothers etc were raped, tortured and murdered, they don’t deserve this kind of humiliation! You don’t know how that feels, the worst thing that has happened to you is probably breaking a nail! You are just another ignorant American who probably doesn’t even know her own history! Funny how you weren’t “inspired” by what Naser Oric was doing!!! There are a lot of movies based on these years and history! What decent woman would have an affair with a married man and then say how she’d never do that because her dad left her mom when she was a kid, and then you do what the other woman did to your mom?!



You are a horrible person, adopting kids is just your mask to hide what kind of person you really are! Don’t stick your fake nose in smth you don’t know! You’ve never seen someone kill and torture your family and friends in front of you! I hope you burn in hell! You are only popular because of physical appearance, you are a horrible actress and an even worse “director”!


Thank you for your support. I hope you will once come toSerbiato see whit kind of people lives here! I would like to ask A.J. what about NATO bombing ofSerbia? What about bombing childe hospital in the center ofBelgrade, what about little girl Milica, what about all other victims of NATO bombing? Where is your story about cluster bombs thrown over Serbian cities, what about Uranium ( 4.5 Billion years of poison!!!) What about your army killing all over the world, Guantanamo etc. What about… AMERICAN GENOCIDE?! You are the last one on this planet that have right to talk about genocide and crime!



Posted in Campaigns1 Comment

Stop the pro-IsraHell lobby


The ‘consultation’ on a statutory lobby register may be a window of opportunity

by Stuart Littlewood

The Queen, and last Royal Yacht

The Queen needs a new royal yacht. But the British government says it can’t afford to buy her one. The £80 million for the project must come from private sources.

“Leading British companies will… be asked to donate funds in exchange for naming rights to various decks and facilities on board,” says The Guardian. Does this mean Her Majesty will be seen entertaining in the Goldman Sachs stateroom and sipping daiquiris on the Starbucks sun-deck? Will she shelter from squalls in the Murdoch salon and arrive and depart via the Revlon helipad?

The last royal yacht, Britannia, was a highly successful tool for promoting Great Britain Limited. That being the case, such an important national asset ought to be government funded, not sponsored by tacky brand names.

£80 million is chickenfeed in the great scheme of things. Why are we so hard up that there’s not enough in the public purse to pay for a new boat for our beloved sovereign? One reason, of course, is because for years we’ve been suckered into joining the United States in fighting Israel’s wars of aggression. Given our huge debts it beggars belief that we’re gearing up for another one… this time against Iran… and pushing the oil markets to the edge of panic.

Opening of new MOD Middle Eastern training facilities at Stanta in Thetford Forest, Norfolk which consist of a rural village and urban complex designed by OPTAG to train troops heading to Afghanistan Photo: ALBANPIX

Haven’t we had our fill of warmongering idiocy?

War fever was magnified at the weekend with an announcement that the Ministry of Defence had splashed out another £14 million on building a replica Middle East village in Thetford Forest for training our troops. It’s complete with shops, fully furnished homes, the stench of rotting meat and a bomb survivor with limbs blown off.

The site was originally a replica Nazi village built in 1942, but that was training for a war of a very different kind… a war in defence of our realm and for our very survival.

Why do we get dragged into these illegal and inhuman expeditions to devastate countries that are no threat to us? Because a team of Israel-firsters in our midst think it’s smart to promote the ambitions of a foreign power at the expense of our own national interest and everyone else’s. They have taken command and control of our country by infiltrating the highest levels of government. For example they hold the key jobs in the Foreign Office.

Britain Plotting with Israel to attack Iran

Our watchdogs ought to have booted them out for violating the sacred principles of conduct in public life, but these leeches are now permanently attached while the dogs are de-fanged and petted.

I can imagine just how robustly the criminal regime in Israel is reprimanded by prime minister David Cameron, a self-declared Zionist, by foreign secretary William Hague, an avid fan of Israel since his teenage years, by Alistair Burt a former officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel and now minister for Middle East affairs, and by Ambassador Gould in Tel Aviv who I’m told is the first Jew appointed to that post.

The proposed lobby register

Our coalition government has just provided a glimmer of hope for a solution – an unintended consequence no doubt – by releasing a woolly discussion document on proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists. This is part of a promise to clean up politics and provide greater transparency in the wake of scandals that destroyed the last shred of public confidence in our political system.

The government defines lobbyists as ‘those who seek to influence or change government policy on behalf of a third party’. The document itself  says that a register should include information about the names of individual lobbyists and lobbying firms and the names of their clients. “In addition, we propose that the register should include whether a lobbyist was previously a Government Minister or a Senior Civil Servant. The Government does not propose that any information on meetings should be included in a register.”

However, only third-party lobbying firms will have to declare their clients and record former ministers and government officials they have on their books. Firms employing in-house lobbyists needn’t register at all.

The register should also offer the same transparency as provided for Ministers, special advisers and senior officials. The recent Fox-Werrity outrage showed how unreliable that is. It took determined digging by a retired former ambassador to shine light into the dark and sinister corners of that affair.

Tamasin Cave from the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, an organisation representing a number of charities, unions and campaign groups, said the proposals “are fundamentally flawed and have the lobbyists’ fingerprints all over them. We need a statutory register to require lobbyists to reveal who is lobbying whom, what they are seeking to influence and how much money they are spending.”

The Independent has already blasted the government for attempting a ‘”whitewash” while campaigners say the move does nothing to clean up the lobby industry’s reputation for forging unhealthy relationships between senior politicians and leading lobbying firms.

Will ministers be required to declare why they are meeting lobbyists or which firms or groups they are representing? Apparently not, says The Independent.

Now’s your chance!

What about those who lobby on behalf of a lawless foreign power? It is vitally important to halt lobby groups like Friends of Israel  (Christian, Conservative, Democrats, Labour) in their tracks. Consultation closes on 13 April, so now’s your chance. Members of the public can make their views known to: Statutory Register of Lobbyists, Cabinet Office, Fourth Floor, 1 Horseguards Road, London SW1A 2HQ. Alternatively, email marking your response with ‘Statutory Register of Lobbyists’ in the subject field of your email.

Make sure you let the government know that you know what a rotten, treacherous game they are playing. The three main political parties in the UK each have a ‘Friends of Israel’ group to ensure pro-Israel members are embedded at all levels in the British political establishment and at the very heart of government, no matter who is in power.

Campaigners argue that these placemen inhibit the government when it comes to taking a principled stand on foreign affairs issues and especially on matters relating to Israel’s criminal acts.

Or the unjustified ganging up against Iran.

Gould and Werritty connection

The aim of Friends of Israel is to promote the interests of Israel within the British Parliament. The Israeli regime is racist in its treatment of the Arab population and criminal in its territorial ambitions. The manifestos of Israel’s political parties are horrific. MPs who align themselves with Israel and endorse its practices are contradicting our own anti-racist laws and international and human rights laws.

Should MPs and ministers be acting on behalf of a foreign military power at the expense of our own interests and security? Of course not. They are expressly forbidden to let outside influence cloud their judgment. To do so would breach the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity – “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

Yet Friends of Israel lobby groups go to great lengths to influence those in power. Some say that FoI membership is a necessary passport to high office.

But the man in the street is entitled to look at the Seven Principles of Public Life and say that the activities of lobbies like Friends of Israel are against the intentions, both in word and spirit, of those Principles. Disgraced defence secretary Dr Liam Fox was quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying: “…We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.” This was when his party was in opposition. Fox presumably spoke for all Friends of Israel in his party (that’s 80 percent of Conservative MPs according to some claims) who were hoping to form the next government. He would have Parliament and the country believe that Israel’s enemy, Iran, must become Britain’s enemy – the sort of dangerous nonsense that could lead our nation to disaster and once again cause hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be shredded and incinerated… Don’t his sort ever learn?

And seldom do FoI members declare an interest when speaking or writing about the Middle East. That is unacceptable in the ‘Mother of Parliaments’.

In the United States there are growing calls for the Israel lobby AIPAC, which is so super-powerful that it calls the shots in Congress and has presidential candidates grovelling to Israel’s agenda, to be classified as an agent of a foreign power and treated accordingly.

Double standards prevail


Strait of Hormuz: Oil gateway to the world


Flotilla: The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers USS John C. Stennis (R) and USS Abraham Lincoln that sailed through the Strait of Hormuz yesterday

Flotilla: The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (left), takes over from the USS John C. Stennis in the Arabian Sea.

The USS Abraham Lincoln later led the convoy through the Strait of Hormuz yesterday


British warship: HMS Argyll, the Type 23 frigate, which joined the U.S. vessels (file photo)

British warship: HMS Argyll, the Type 23 frigate, which joined the U.S. vessels (file photo)

Under pressure: USS John C. Stennis (L) and USS Abraham Lincoln (R) pictured last week. Yesterday they passed through the strait. Today the EU are expected to impose an oil embargo

Under pressure: USS John C. Stennis (L) and USS Abraham Lincoln (R) pictured last week. Yesterday they passed through the strait. Today the EU are expected to impose an oil embargo. Credit images : dailymail,uk

The British government ordered a warship to join the US flotilla steaming through the Strait of Hormuz “to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law”. It’s a response to Iran’s threat to close that seaway if the West imposes an oil embargo.

Royal Navy ships have been patrolling there continuously since the 1980s, but brave Britain hasn’t lifted a finger to keep the sea lanes to Gaza open in response to Israel’s endless illegal blockade and brutal assaults on Gaza’s fishermen and peaceful humanitarian vessels trying to reach the besieged population with aid.

And yesterday the EU announced an embargo on Iranian oil exports, which Britain had been pressing for. It is horribly reminiscent of the bully-boy tactics of the early 1950s, when Britain and America engineered a similar embargo and brought Iran to its knees in order to overthrow the democratic government of Dr Mossadeq and reinstate the hated Shah and his secret police. Why? Because Iran wanted to control its own oil and Britain and the US didn’t like that.

This latest move amounts to another direct attack on Iran’s economic lifeline and smacks of collective punishment and economic terrorism. It will cause hardship to ordinary citizens and further hostility throughout the Islamic world. Nothing pleases Israel more, but why are we so eager to dance to Israel’s tune and damage ourselves in the eyes of world opinion?

Hague said: “Today’s sanctions show how serious EU member states are about preventing nuclear proliferation…” But he and the EU are not in the least serious about nuke-bristling Israel’s refusal to sign up to, or even discuss, non-proliferation. No sanctions there.

Meanwhile hard-pressed British and European motorists are likely to pay a heavy price for this tomfoolery when oil prices rocket. And we are still waiting for proof that Iran has actually done something wrong, are we not? Where does Hague think he’s leading us?

Notice too how the British government’s broadcast regulator has chosen this moment to silence PressTV, Iran’s English-language broadcaster in the UK, by revoking its license and thus suppressing the other side of the story. PressTV was an inconvenient voice that ruffled too many fine feathers among Britain’s bloodthirsty elite. Truth and free speech, as usual, are the first casualties in softening up the public for war.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Stop the pro-IsraHell lobby

Independent Libyan Fact-Finding Mission


by Stephen Lendman


A joint report was released by the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR), Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), and International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC).

Their mission investigated alleged widespread international law violations since mid-February 2011. Its mandate included investigating those committed by:

  • the former government;

  • NATO; and

  • insurgents.

It also sought to identify human rights issues, requiring Lybian and international attention.

Investigators included “leading international jurists and lawyers with expertise in international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law, transitional justice, and the development of legal systems in post-conflict environments.”

Information obtained from witnesses, victims, and other parties were kept confidential unless already revealed and available.

Investigations weren’t meant to be comprehensive. Rather, the mission tried “to convey the considered observations of its members, in order to facilitate, and prompt, the work of other bodies and authorities.”

Investigators included:

  1. Raji Sourani: PCHR Director, Arab Organization for Human Rights President (AOHR), International Federation for Human Rights Vice President, Executive Committee of the International Committee of Jurists member, as well as other credentials.

  2. Amin Mekki Medani: Sudanese lawyer and former AOHR President. He also held various UN posts.

  3. Mohsen Awad: former AOHR Secretary-General and Egyptian Human Rights Council member.

  4. Amina Bouayach: Moroccan Organization for Human Rights President and International Federation for Human Rights Vice President.

  5. Agneta Johansson: International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) Deputy Director.

  6. William Meyer: ILAC Chairman and former CEELI Prague Institute Executive Director.

  7. Daragh Murray: Republic of Ireland IRCHSS Scholar and head of PCHR’s International Unit.

  8. Hany Abu Nahla: head of PCHR’s Translation Unit.

From November 15 – 22, investigations and interviews were conducted in Western Libya alone, in and around Tripoli, Zawiya, Sibrata, Khoms, Zliten, Misrata, Tawergha, and Sirte. Significantly, Benghazi was omitted, an area plagued by insurgent crimes.

Findings revealed “significant” international law violations. However, imposed constraints prevented investigators from reaching “definitive legal conclusions regarding individual incidents.” Nonetheless, they believe crimes of war and against humanity were committed.

Evidence suggests NATO classified civilian sites as military ones for attacks, including homes, schools, colleges, food distribution centers, hospitals, mosques, and others. In addition, civilians were targeted, notably in Sirte.

In fact, one incident there killed 47 or more non-combatants. This and other incidents raise “significant questions,” requiring further inquiry and disclosure.

Insurgents also violated international law, including civilian killings; torture and other abuses; wrongful detentions; mistreatment of foreign workers, and forced “displacement of suspected enemies of the Revolution.”

Observations about Gaddafi’s Governance

Unfortunately, investigators used dubious sources, calling his authority “one man rule.” They include the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Crisis Group (ICG). Neither functions independently.

The ICC notoriously serves Western interests. As a result, it absolves or ignores their crimes while targeting their enemies like Gaddafi.

Former World Bank vice president Mark Malloch Brown and former US diplomat Morton Abramowitz co-founded the ICG. Now headed by former US diplomat Thomas Pickering and former International Criminal Tribunals chief prosecutor for Yugoslavia and Rwanda Louise Arbour, it functions the same way.

Its Executive Committee and advisors include former US and Western officials, former NATO commander Wesley Clark, and corporate figures like George Soros. They, in turn, reframed responsibility to protect authority in Libya to lawlessly intervene belligerently to establish neo-colonial rule. In fact, UN Charter provisions explicitly prohibit military force for humanitarian interventions.

Investigators also mischaracterized Jamahiriya governance, calling it “an elaborate facade” to hide Gaddafi’s sole authority. Quoting the ICG, they described it as “a highly complex formal ruling system containing a plethora of congresses and committees, often with overlapping powers, that have contributed to a sense of orchestrated and perpetual chaos.”

In addition by calling himself “Brother Leader,” Gaddafi “avoid(ed) accountability.”

They quoted the ICC saying “the Libyan State apparatus of power – including political, administrative, military and security branches – consists of a complex set of units and individuals, all of which are ultimately subject to the orders and control of” Gaddafi.

They ignored Washington’s longstanding regime change policy. As a result, an externally generated insurgency followed. In addition, the National Transitional Council (NTC) was illegitimately established with interim puppet authority for Western interests. Libyans are entirely shut out.

Nonetheless, investigators called it “internationally recognized as the Government of Libya….to oversee the transition to representative democracy.”

In fact, Washington, NATO partners, and complicit regional states don’t tolerate democracy or international law. Ignoring that denies reality.

Moreover, investigators claim “pre-revolutionary Libya (was) characterized by a climate of fear, in which individuals were afraid to speak their mind, where opposition – real or perceived – was ruthlessly crushed, and where security forces committed apparently widespread and systematic abuses with total impunity.”

Sadly, the facts belie this description. Most Libyans supported Gaddafi and still do. During NATO’s intervention, overwhelming numbers rallied openly. On July 1, 2011, 95% of Tripoli’s population (over a million strong) expressed support in Green Square.

Fear restrains them now. Doing so risks imprisonment, torture, and/or death by summary execution.

Libya’s social state was also ignored, including under Gaddafi’s 1999 Decision No. 111. It assured all Libyans free healthcare, education, electricity, water, training, rehabilitation, housing assistance, disability and old-age benefits, interest-free state loans, as well as generous subsidies to study abroad, buy a new car, help couples when they marry, practically free gasoline, and more.

Literacy under Gaddafi rose from 20 – 80%. Libya’s hospitals and private clinics were some of the region’s best. Now they’re in shambles.

Before war began, Libyans had Africa’s highest standard of living. Gaddafi’s Green Book said:

“The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.” It also covered other social policies, saying:

  • “Women, like men, are human beings.

  • ….(A)ll individuals have a natural right to self-expression by any means….;

  • In a socialist society no person may own a private means of transportation for the purpose of renting to others, because this represents controlling the needs of others.

  • The democratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundation stones are firmly laid above the other (through People’s Conferences and Committees). There is absolutely no conception of democratic society other than this.

  • No representation of the people – representation is a falsehood. The existence of parliaments underlies the absence of the people, for democracy can only exist with the presence of the people and not in the presence of representatives of the people.”

Green Book ideology rejects Western-style democracy and predatory capitalism, especially neoliberal exploitation. It’s one of many reasons why Gaddafi was ousted.

His impressive social benefits also included free land, equipment, livestock and seeds for agriculture to foster self-sufficient food production. In addition, all basic food items were subsidized and sold through a network of “people’s shops.”

Moreover, since the 1960s, women could vote and participate politically. They could also own and sell property independently of their husbands. Under the December 1969 Constitutional Proclamation Clause 5, they had equal status with men, including for education and employment, even though men played leading roles in society.

Until Washington and rogue NATO partners blocked its approval, the UN Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi in its January 2011 “Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Libya Arab Jamahiriya.”

It said his government protected “not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights.” It also lauded his treatment of religious minorities, and “human rights training” of its security forces.

Throughout most of 2011, NATO’s killing machine destroyed 42 years of achievements. All Libyans benefitted. Why else did Gaddafi have overwhelming support?

His vision marked him for removal. It was just a matter of when, even though he cooperated with Western powers post-9/11 on matters of intelligence and terrorism.

Until vilified and targeted, he was welcomed in Western capitals. In 2003, he came in from the cold, became a valued Western ally, and had meetings and discussions with top officials like UK Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and others.

He also participated in the 2009 G-8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy as Chairman of the African Union. At the time, he met and shook hands with Obama.

Moreover, ABC News interviewed him live, and on January 21, 2009, The New York Times published his op-ed headlined, “The One-State Solution” to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He called “living under one roof….the only option for a lasting peace.”

On May 16, 2006, Washington restored full diplomatic relations. Libya was removed from its state sponsors of terrorism list. At the time, Rice called the move:

“tangible results that flow from the historic decisions taken by Libya’s leadership in 2003 to renounce terrorism and to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs….Libya is an important model as nations around the world press for changes in behavior by the Iranian and North Korean regimes.”

She also praised Gaddafi’s “excellent cooperation” in fighting terrorism. Moreover, he opened Libya’s markets to Western interests by arranging deals with Big Oil giants BP, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Occidental, France’s Total, Italy’s Eni Gas and others. By all appearances, he joined the club, so why turn on him?

Though on board in some ways, he very much wasn’t on others. He supported Palestinian rights. As a result, he opposed Israel’s occupation and Gaza’s siege.

Earlier he backed South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggles, as well as others in Northern Ireland, Spain, and elsewhere.

He opted out of AFRICOM’s imperial regional plan. He wanted Libyans to control their own resources and use revenues domestically for all Libyans. His Central Bank of Libya was state owned. It created its own money interest-free for economic growth, not speculation and wealth for predatory bankers.

He promoted pan-African unity, an idea anathema to Washington and Western powers. He advocated a new “Gold Standard,” replacing dollars with gold dinars, and hoped other African and Muslim states would adopt the idea. That alone got him targeted for removal.

He had nothing to do with downing Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Neither did Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. Scottish judges knew he was innocent but were pressured to convict.

Gaddafi never admitted fault. He took responsibility solely to have international sanctions removed. To this day, he and al-Megrahi stand falsely accused. Likely CIA /MI6/and/or Mossad involvement is never mentioned.

A Final Comment

Libyan Investigators have legitimate credentials as human rights supporters. Organizations like PCHR do extraordinary work. They deserve praise, encouragement and help.

Their report highlighted international crimes, need for more investigation, and prosecutions for those responsible.

It expressed concern for ongoing abuses in detention, mistreatment of foreign workers, and forced displacements of suspected Gaddafi loyalists. It called for measures to stop ongoing crimes.

Nonetheless, it wrongfully said “Libya is emerging from 42 years of authoritarian rule and governance characterized by injustice, the denial of fundamental human rights, and impunity.”

Libya’s now repressively occupied. A climate of fear prevails. Insurgent killers threaten Gaddafi supporters. Silence best protects them. Nonetheless, Libyans revealed crimes committed by NATO and rebel rat forces.

However, others condemning Gaddafi appear suspect. Indeed, he had enemies, but most Libyans supported him with good reason. As a result, the report tragically falls short. It includes NATO and insurgent crimes but mischaracterizes Gaddafi’s rule.

Hopefully, another mission will follow in less volatile times. Violence still rages. Little gets reported. Western media scoundrels entirely suppress it. Libyans deserve better. Their nation was peaceful until NATO showed up. Now it’s destroyed and all previously enjoyed rights lost.

Mission team members must acknowledge it and point fingers where they belong.


In mid-January, 12,000 US troops were positioned in Malta ahead of occupying Libya. On January 18, Libya SOS said hundreds of American soldiers already arrived. Libya’s Western-appointed foreign minister said 6,000 came to Tripoli’s Mitiga International Airport.

Straightaway, they set up “mobile camps and equipment around oil fields and refineries.” In other words, they’re protecting Western interests, principally oil. Libyans lost their rightful resources and living standard they afforded.

“Tunis Focus” reports that US forces are in Brega, Ras Lanouf, Sirte, and Tripoli’s Mitiga International Airport. Moreover, US and NATO helicopters, warplanes, and drones now patrol Libyan airspace. They’re surveilling and attacking suspicious targets.

Ahead lies occupation, neo-colonization, pillaging, exploitation, violence and repression. It persists wherever America shows up. So does overwhelming suffering and human misery. Libyans experienced it for months. Much more lies ahead.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Independent Libyan Fact-Finding Mission

Sharp-Elbowed Politics in the New Arab World


ED NOTE: Juan says “Religion is probably irrelevant as an explanatory consideration.” I disagree. We will probably never get religion out of politics, it is too valuable and effective a tool, and plays too important a part… but they certainly do not need any of the world’s politics in Islam or the Zionist rats in the region!

As long as American Mainstream journalist “sayans” (hebrew for helpers) continue to sit on the fence and pretend objectivity, the evil ones will keep prevailing as they rage for more Middle East war as they target Syria and Iran for regime change.

Regardless, Juan Cole has some interesting facts, and smacks them directly on the head when he describes Politics in the New Arab World.

by Juan Cole

From left to right: Lt. Gen. Mohamed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi, the head of the Arab League monitoring mission to Syria, Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi Nabil al-Arabi and Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani at the Arab League meeting in Cairo on January 22, 2012


What are the big stories in the Arab world today? A newly elected parliament is being seated, and a deposed president is leaving the country. But beyond that, the remarkable thing is that there are any political stories at all. There weren’t, a year and a half ago. The political stories of today are not about the advent of paradise, but about the politics of transitions.

It was never acceptable to assert glibly in an op-ed that things have happened “Because Arabs are… ” such and such. It has the form of a racist argument. Arabs are only united, if at all, by a common language (and even it is diverse). Things happen because “Arabs do…”, because of actions they take for reasons of their social interests, not because of what they supposedly “are.”

The new Arab world created by the people power movements of 2012 is not suddenly Sweden. No one should have expected it to be. The Arab world had been stuck in a stagnating rut, of dictatorship, family cartels, embezzlement, corruption, and stagnation. Where economic growth of 5% a year began being reported, as in Tunisia or Egypt, it was either a lie or was mostly captured by a small economic elite, the Arab 1%.

What began in some of these countries in 2011 was a transition, a transition that activists hoped would be toward regular, free and fair parliamentary elections and ways for students, workers, office workers, women, religious activists, and religious minorities to have an impact on policy. None of these things would have been possible in the least under the old regimes. There was no hope. Now there is hope but no certitude.

In Tunisia and Egypt, that transition has begun. In Yemen, less stark change is afoot, but some sort of transition seems at least to be beginning. In Libya, the dictator was overthrown but elections are still some six months off. In Syria, a popular movement is still attempting to kick off the transition. In Bahrain, the movement was crushed, but village demonstrations bravely continue.

In Morocco, Algeria, and Jordan, there have been at least some reforms to forestall the outbreak of a more vigorous movement. In the oil rich states of the Gulf, the monarchs and emirs have attempted to bribe their publics into quiescence.

The transitions may fail. They involve politics, the working of

social conflict among large social groups into political speeches, elections and policies. Sometimes a democratic transition begins and stalls out. Sometimes it is incomplete (one thinks of Russia). Sometimes it remains incomplete for a long time. Sometimes dictatorship returns (Ukraine?). Sometimes longstanding democracies themselves deteriorate politically (think of Italy under Silvio Berlusconi with high levels of corruption and a form of press censorship).

The success or failure of transitions depends on many things. It helps to have a wealthy country, but perhaps only Tunisia fits the bill even a little bit in the Arab region. It helps not to have strong ethnic divisions and grievances. It helps to have a strong middle class and institutions such as labor unions and chambers of commerce. Religion is probably irrelevant as an explanatory consideration.

Those who throw up their hands over the rise of Muslim religious parties in Egypt or the continued instability in Libya are not looking at what has happened as a set of processes. If anything good came out of the uprisings of 2011 it is precisely this flux, this opening toward possibilities, this politics. Because in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt or Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya there was no politics of an ordinary sort, only secret police and massive embezzlement and arbitrary arrest and torture.

If some of the transitions don’t get off the ground or if they fail, there are concrete economic and political reasons for it. Those need to be investigated and understood. The day when bigots could say that Arabs or Muslims are incapable of a certain kind of politics has passed. But the day when we can understand in detail why their politics evolves as it does is still not here.

A once reluctant United States is reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in a nod to Egypt’s new political reality.

So here are the stories of the transitions today, the stories of politics in a region formerly beset by censorship, secret police, domestic spying, and deadening silences.

1. On Monday, the newly elected lower house of parliament met. The last elected parliament, of fall, 2010, had been almost completely dominated by members of the corrupt National Democratic Party of Hosni Mubarak, and clearly all challengers to his regime had been excluded from winning seats by the police who counted the ballots. Public rage at a clearly phony electoral outcome fed into the uprising of Jan. 25-Feb. 11. The new parliament is dominated by Muslim religious parties, with the Muslim Brotherhood, at 47% of seats, the largest. It met with three other parties to choose the new speaker of the house, Mohammed al-Katatny, who is resigning from his position in the Muslim Brotherhood to take this post. That is, al-Katatny’s appointment was passed by the Wafd Party, which has a lot of Coptic Christians and secular Muslims in it, and the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, as well as the Salafi Nur Party (the second-biggest). Nur and the Wafd will supply the two deputy speakers.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been attempting to become a central actor in Egyptian society and politics for many decades, so its dominance of this parliament is historic. As AP points out, they are avoiding triumphalism or extreme policies because they don’t want to provoke the kind of social conflict that occurred in Algeria in the 1990s after a Muslim religious party came to power at the polls there but was deposed by military intervention. Some 150,000 persons are said to have died in that fighting.

2. Thousands of political prisoners have been released in Tunisia, a year after dictator Zine El Abidin Ben Ali was overthrown. In addition, 122 prisoners on death row had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment by President Moncef al-Marzouqi, a human rights activist who had been exiled to France by his predecessor. He has pledged to work to abolish capital punishment.

Mass protest in Sana’a demands president Saleh’s trial

3. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has left Yemen for Oman on his way to the United States for medical treatment. (He had been wounded in a bombing in summer, 2011). Before he departed, he gave a speech asking the people to pardon him for any mistakes committed during his three decades of rule. Saleh’s opponents have opposed the immunity from prosecution granted him by the plan of the Gulf Cooperation Council. He had said that he turned power over to his vice president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who, however, complained that Saleh continued to interfere in the political process. On Sunday, Saleh is said to have finally relinquished all prerogatives to Hadi. Saleh says that he will return in February, as head of the General People’s Congress Party, which will contest the presidential election scheduled for that month. Hadi will be the standard bearer for the ruling party.

The Arabic press reports that on Sunday, tens of thousands of demonstrators came out at Change Square in Sanaa to demand that Saleh be tried for crimes he committed in the course of trying to put down the rallies of winter-spring, 2011.

4. Libya’s Transitional National Council is facing protests from activists in the country’s second largest city, Benghazi. That city was crucial to the movement that overthrew Qaddafi, but its residents say that they are the victims of neglect by the transitional government, which has a lot of former regime officials in it. In both Tunisia and Egypt, transitional prime ministers had to resign under pressure from democratic activists not satisfied with how much continuity there was from the old regime.

5. On Sunday, the Arab League called for President Bashar al-Assad to step down and to allow a government of national unity to guide the country to a new system. This plan sounds very much like the one adopted (or partially adopted) in Yemen. Al-Assad angrily rejected the suggestion as undue interference in Syria’s internal affairs.

It isn’t surprising that the Baath government castigated the Arab League for interfering. What is amazing is that the Arab League is attempting to suggest a way forward for Syria, out of its crises and gridlock. For decades the Arab League was a cypher. But under Secretary-General Nabil Alaraby, it has become an international organization of some importance. It called for the intervention against Qaddafi in Libya. Al-Assad has blown it off, treating it as if it was still divided and toothless, as in the past. He may be making a mistake. His strong alliance with Iran and the unsavory sight of all those sniping attacks on his own civilians has turned a lot of the Arab League against him.


Full Interview President Bashar al-Assad with Barbara Walters from ABC News

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Sharp-Elbowed Politics in the New Arab World

US Presidential Candidates’ Positions on IsraHell – Palestine, War, and Civil Liberties


CNI summarizes the policy positions of President Obama and the top Republican nominees.


by  Pamela Olson

Click on the links below or scroll down to see the candidates’ statements on Israel-Palestine, the wars, and Civil Liberties.



War against Iran

Civil Liberties

Mitt Romney

Pro-Israel, against Palestinian UN bid

Increase the military by 100,00 troops, threaten Iran with military action

Pro-Patriot Act & related measures

Newt Gingrich

Pro-Israel, calls Palestinians an invented people

Prefers imposing regime change through non-military methods, but force is an option

Would strengthen Patriot Act

Rick Santorum

Pro-Israel, the West Bank is legitimate Israeli territory

Advocates air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities

Civil laws must comport with God’s law, pro-Patriot Act & related measures

Ron Paul

Non-interventionist, end US aid to Israel

Generally anti-war, against pre-emptive strike on Iran

Opposed to the Patriot Act & related measures

Barak Obama

Pro-Israel, opposes settlements, supports two-state solution along 1967 borders, but has done little to advance these positions

All options are open

Supported reauthorizing Patriot Act, has maintained or increased executive power

Mitt Romney



Mitt Romney at the Mossad (Israeli intelligence agency) conference in 2007

“In his first 100 days, Mitt Romney will reaffirm as a vital U.S. national interest the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. To ensure Israel’s security, Mitt Romney will work closely with Israel to maintain its strategic military edge… With regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mitt Romney will… reduce assistance to the Palestinians if they continue to pursue United Nations recognition or form a unity government that includes Hamas.”[17]

“Over the past three years, President Obama has… chastened Israel. He’s insulted its Prime Minister. And he’s been timid and weak in the face of the existential threat of a nuclear Iran.”[18]

War against Iran


One of Romney’s campaign ads claims that “violent, radical Islamist fundamentalism” is “this century’s nightmare.” Romney pledged to “increase the military by 100,000 troops.”[19]

“As the world’s greatest power, the United States will strive to set the international policy agenda, create a predictable economic and security environment that enables other countries to develop policies that are in conformity with our own… While America should work with others to advance our interests and values, America will always reserve the right to act alone to protect our vital interests.”[20]

“Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon… In his first 100 days, [he will] make clear that the military option is on the table by ordering the regular presence of an aircraft carrier task force in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. He will also begin talks with Israel to increase military coordination and assistance and enhance intelligence sharing.”[21]

Civil Liberties


“Governor Mitt Romney raised the prospect of wiretapping mosques and conducting surveillance of foreign students in Massachusetts, as he issued a broad call yesterday for the federal government to devote far more money and attention to domestic intelligence gathering.”[22]

Romney supported the Patriot Act, federal wiretapping, and other post-9/11 measures that violate Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Newt Gingrich at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s 2012 Presidential Candidates Forum

Newt Gingrich



“I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs… And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons [they] have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s.”[1]

“As President, on my first day in office, I will issue an executive order directing the US Embassy in Israel to be moved to Jerusalem as provided for in the legislation I introduced in Congress in 1995… The United States should explicitly reject the concept of a right of return for Palestinian refugees.”[2]

On January 6, 2012, Gingrich’s super PAC received a $5 million contribution from Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire with close ties to the far right in Israel.  Adelson publicly approved of Gingrich’s statement that Palestinians are an ‘invented people.’[3]

War against Iran


Bombing Iranian nuclear sites, as some suggest, is “a fantasy,” he said, because many are underground. Instead, the United States must seek “regime change” in Tehran.[4]

“Unless they unilaterally disarm their entire system, we are going to replace [the Iranian] regime. We’re ideally going to do it non-militarily, but we are not going to tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon.”[5]

“We need a strategy, as Rick Santorum was saying, of being honest about radical Islam and designing a strategy to defeat it wherever it happens to exist.”[6]

“The United States is ‘about where we were in 1946’ up against the Soviet Union, he said recently,” suggesting a possible decades-long Cold War with the Muslim world.[7]

“We are engaged in a long war against radical Islamism… a powerful and organized ideology within Islamic thought that is totally incompatible with the modern world.”[8]

Civil Liberties


On the PATRIOT Act: “I think looking at it carefully and extending it and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives… I’d look at strengthening it, because I think the dangers are literally that great.”[9]


Rick Santorum at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s 2012 Pres. Candidates Forum

Rick Santorum



“All the people that live in the West Bank are Israelis. They are not Palestinians. There is no Palestinian. This is Israeli land.”

–Rick Santorum, November 21, 2011[10]

The West Bank “is legitimately Israeli country,” so Israelis “have a right to build things based upon their ownership of that land.”[11]

War against Iran


“We will degrade those facilities through air strikes, and make it very public that we are doing that.”

–Rick Santorum on Meet the Press, January 1, 2012[12]

“On occasion scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing, candidly.”

–Rick Santorum at an October 2011 campaign stop in Greenville, SC[13]

“[T]he fight against Islamic fascism is the great test of our generation. Leaders are obliged to articulate this threat and to propose what is necessary to defeat it.”[14]

“We need to change our information operations abroad to promote our core values of freedom, equality, and democracy—just as we did with the Soviet Empire in the 1980s.”[15]

Civil Liberties


“Our civil laws have to comport with a higher law. God’s law… And not any God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”[16]

Santorum supported the Patriot Act, federal wiretapping, and other post-9/11 measures that violate Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Ron Paul



“The position that we should hold [in Israel/Palestine] is that we should be on neither side… Even though Israel did the invading of Gaza, we, the United States, will be blamed for it. And there’s some truth to this, because Israel depends on us… and they really got a green light from our administration… It just means that we have just antagonized the Muslim Arab world even more so than ever before, and unfortunately we’ll suffer the consequences of this.”[32]

“Our policies of intervention and manipulation in Iran and Iraq and other places have led to unintended consequences and have not made Israel safer. Many in the Jewish community share my opinion, and it’s vital for both nations that we continue to have an open dialogue.”[33]

“I would treat [Israel/Palestine] like the rest of the world. I’d want to be friends. I wouldn’t want to interfere. I wouldn’t send money. I would let people sort out their problems.”[34]

War against Iran


“We’re involved in wars in Afghanistan, we’re escalating the war there. We’re pretending the war is over in Iraq, which it is not, and it’s draining us. It’s draining us emotionally, certainly it’s draining us financially, and as this whole area blows up, where are we even going to get the funds to keep this militarism going? And yet nobody in Washington’s really considering… cutting back on the world empire.”[35]

Ron Paul told Iowa voters in December that he would not launch a preemptive strike on Iran because “they don’t threaten our national security.”[36]

Regarding war against Iran, Paul said in a GOP debate in November, “I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq.”[37]

Civil Liberties


“Everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America.”[38]

If elected, Ron Paul pledges to “guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act” and “prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.”[39]

“I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty… our early founders were very clear. They said, don’t be willing to sacrifice liberty for security… You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.”[40]

Barak Obama appearing at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC

Barak Obama appearing at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):

Barack ObamaIsrael/Palestine: On June 3, 2008, Barak Obama secured enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for the 2008 presidential election. The very next day, he gave a speech at AIPAC, the main institution of the Israel lobby, calling Israel’s security ‘sacrosanct’ and ‘non-negotiable.’

[23]He appointed Rahm Emanuel, whose father is Israeli and who supported the Iraq War and volunteered with the Israeli army during the Gulf War, as his White House chief of staff.

[24]The Obama administration has called settlement expansion “unhelpful” and publicly supports the formation of a Palestinian state. But the Obama administration has done nothing serious to pressure the Israelis to comply, and so far the Israeli government has flouted the wishes of the Obama administration with impunity.Yet Obama secretly sold Israel bunker-busting bombs, which the Israeli government had requested under the Bush administration, and cast the only UN veto of his administration against a Security Council resolution condemning settlement expansion. Obama has also taken US financial assistance to Israel to record levels. He opposed the Goldstone Report, stood with Israel when it killed nine civilians aboard the Mavi Marmara, and derailed Palestinian attempts to unilaterally declare statehood at the UN. (He threatened to veto any move by the Palestinians to gain recognition at the UN and engaged in quiet but intense diplomacy to discourage other countries from recognizing Palestine as a state.)

[25]“This support in the international community is coupled with unprecedented military and security cooperation with Israel under President Obama. The administration sent Israel the largest-ever security-assistance funding in 2010 ($2.775 billion) and raised that to $3 billion for 2011 – spending over 50 percent of the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Finance Program’s budget on Israel – and has provided about $200 million annually to US-Israel joint missile defense programs. The Obama administration has also granted Israeli forces access to advanced US military hardware (such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter), emergency stockpiles and free or discounted equipment. Under President Obama, US forces conducted the largest ever US-Israel military exercise, Juniper Cobra – sending a clear message to Israel’s enemies about President Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security.”

[26]“I was in uniform for decades – I can hardly remember a better period of support, American support and cooperation and similar strategic understanding of events around us than what we have right now.”–Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak, August 2011

[27]“We have not had a better friend than President Obama… Cooperation has never been better upon issues which are of the most sensitive and most [important] to our collective security and well-being.”–Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, September 2011

[28]War against IranBen Rhodes, White House deputy national security advisor, responded to the GOP debaters’ critique of President Obama’s handling of Iran. “This president has never hesitated with action,” Rhodes told CBS News, adding that problems aren’t solved through “rhetoric alone” and all options are open.

[29]Civil LibertiesObama supported reauthorizing the Patriot Act and supports warrantless wiretapping. His administration has been at least as secretive as Bush’s despite promises of transparency and accountability.

[30]The Obama administration has retained and increased the powers acquired by the US government since 9/11, including assassination of US citizens, indefinite detention, warrantless searches, using secret evidence in trials, committing actions defined as war crimes by international law, and extraordinary rendition.

[31] About CNI

[1] Alexander Marquardt, “Newt Gingrich ‘Ignorant,’ ‘Racist’ Say Palestinians,” ABC News, December 10, 2011.

[2] Newt Gingrich, “New Stands with Israel,” Campaign Website of Newt Gingrich, December 7, 2011.

[3] Revital Blumenfeld, “Sheldon Adelson to Birthright group: Gingrich is right to call Palestinians ‘invented people’,” Haaretz, December 26, 2011.

[4] Trip Gabriel, “Gingrich’s Foreign Policy Words Summon the Cold War, but Enemy Is Iran,” New York Times, December 14, 2011.

[5] Michael Crowley, “Newt Gingrich Contemplates War with Iran,” TIME, December 13, 2011.

[6] Juan Cole, “Gingrich Urges War with Iran and Skyrocketing Oil Prices,” Informed Comment, November 23, 2011.

[7] Trip Gabriel, “Gingrich’s Foreign Policy Words Summon the Cold War, but Enemy Is Iran,” New York Times, December 14, 2011.

[8] Newt Gingrich, “Tell the Truth about National Security,” Campaign Website of Newt Gingrich, 2012.

[9] “Sparks fly over the Patriot Act,” Fox News, November 22, 2011.

[10] Glenn Kessler, “The Fact Checker: Rick Santorum’s claim that ‘no Palestinian’ lives in the West Bank,” Washington Post, January 5, 2012.

[11] Robert Mackey, “Santorum Insists West Bank Is ‘Part of Israel’,” The Lede Blog, New York Times, January 5, 2012.

[12] Michael Ono, “Santorum Says He Would Bomb Iran’s Nuclear Plants,” ABC News, January 1, 2012.

[13] Michael Brendan Dougherty, “Rick Santorum: Dead Foreign Scientists Are A ‘Wonderful Thing’ (Video),” Business Insider, October 27, 2011.

[14] Rick Santorum, “In Rebuttal: Islamic fascists vs. Islam itself,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 7, 2006.

[15] Rick Santorum, “10 Steps to Promote our Interests around the World,” Campaign Website of Rick Santorum, 2012.

[16] Dein Obeidallah, “Santorum wants to impose ‘Judeo-Christian Sharia’,” CNN, January 5, 2012.

[17] Mitt Romney, “Fact Sheet: Mitt Romney’s Strategy to Ensure an American Century,” Campaign Website of Mitt Romney, October 7, 2011.

[18] Jim Lobe, “Republican Frontrunner Mitt Romney Touts Neoconservative Foreign Policy,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2011.

[19] Theresa Cook, “Romney’s ‘Jihad’ thread ad,” ABC News, October 12, 2007.

[20] Mitt Romney, “Fact Sheet: Mitt Romney’s Strategy to Ensure an American Century,” Campaign Website of Mitt Romney, October 7, 2011.

[21] Mitt Romney, “Fact Sheet: Mitt Romney’s Strategy to Ensure an American Century,” Campaign Website of Mitt Romney, October 7, 2011.

[22] Scott Helman, “Wiretap Mosques, Romney suggests,” Boston Globe, September 15, 2005.

[23] “Transcript: Obama’s Speech at AIPAC,” NPR, June 4, 2008.

[24] Michael Scherer, “Rahm Emanuel’s Father Problem,” TIME, November 13, 2008.

[25] Steve Sheffey, “Obama, by his actions, has earned the pro-Israel vote,” Chicago Sun-Times, January 14, 2012.

[26] Robert Wexler, “Defending Obama’s pro-Israel credentials,” Jerusalem Post, September 22, 2011.

[27] Robert Wexler, “Defending Obama’s pro-Israel credentials,” Jerusalem Post, September 22, 2011.

[28] Robert Wexler, “Defending Obama’s pro-Israel credentials,” Jerusalem Post, September 22, 2011.

[29] Brian Montopoli, “Romney, Gingrich at GOP debate: We’d go to war to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons,” CBS News, November 12, 2011.

[30] Editorial, “We Can’t Tell You,” New York Times, April 3, 2010.

[31] Jonathan Turley, “10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free,” Washington Post, January 13, 2012.’s the same article reprinted elsewhere in case you have trouble accessing it:

[32] Ron Paul on Gaza, Youtube, January 3, 2009.

[33] Chemi Shalev, “Ron Paul tells Haaretz: I am not an anti-Semite,” Haaretz, December 28, 2011.

[34] Michael Gillespie, “In Iowa, Rep. Ron Paul Upstages Six Republican Presidential Hopefuls,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September/October 2007.

[35] Ron Paul on Gaza, Youtube, January 3, 2009.

[36] Jason M. Volack, “Ron Paul: Iran Does Not Threaten Our National Security,” ABC News, December 30, 2011.

[37] Brian Montopoli, “Romney, Gingrich at GOP debate: We’d go to war to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons,” CBS News, November 12, 2011.

[38] Ron Paul, “The 9-11 Commission Charade,”, August 24, 2004.

[39] Ron Paul, “National Defense,” Campaign website of Ron Paul, 2012.

[40] “Sparks fly over the Patriot Act,” Fox News, November 22, 2011.


Posted in USAComments Off on US Presidential Candidates’ Positions on IsraHell – Palestine, War, and Civil Liberties

The Armenian Genocide


Raphael Lemkin defined genocide as:


by Stephen Lendman


“the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group” that corresponds to other terms like “tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc.” (It) does not necessarily mean the destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings….It is intended….to signify a coordinated plan (to destroy) the essential foundations of the life of national groups” with the intent to eradicate or substantially weaken or harm them. “Genocidal plans involve the disintegration….of political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, economic existence, personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and” human lives.

In legal terms, the 1948 Genocide Convention used the same definition. They’re binding principles. Nonetheless, America, Israel, and rogue NATO partners violate them with impunity.

On May 28, 1948, the UN War Crimes Commission prepared a report on “The Massacres of the Armenians in Turkey,” saying:

On May 28, 1915, France, Britain and Russia denounced Turkey’s “crimes against humanity and civilization.” A key passage reads:

“In the presence of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and the civilization, the allied Governments (know) that they will be held personally responsible for the so-called crimes of all members of the Ottoman Government as well as those of the officers who would be involved in such massacres.”

The 1920 peace Treaty of Sevres with Turkey required it “hand over to the Allied Powers the persons responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on the 1st August 1914.”

The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. The Treaty of Lausanne (July 23, 1923) replaced it. Genocidal crimes were excluded. Instead, it was accompanied by a “Declaration of Amnesty” for all offenses committed from August 1, 1914 – November 20, 1922.

On May 28, 1951, the (1945-established) International Court of Justice (ICJ) published an “advisory opinion” on “Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” saying:

The Convention followed “the inhuman and barbarous practices….during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and subjected to deliberate extermination.”

The ICC also named past genocides, including “the Turkish massacres of Armenians….”

On July 2, 1985, the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities “revised and updated” the issue of genocide and preventing it.

Among those mentioned, it recognized “the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916.”

France Passes Armenian Genocide Law

On January 23, Reuters headlined, “France passes genocide law, faces Turkish reprisals,” saying:

France’s Parliament passed a bill “making it illegal to deny the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks nearly a century ago was genocide.”

France already recognizes the genocide. The new measure makes denying it illegal. It also imposes a one-year prison sentence and $57,000 fine.

In response, Turkey threatened a “total rupture” of diplomatic ties. All economic, political and military ones were cancelled after France’s lower House passed the law. Its ambassador was recalled, and Ankara said further retaliatory measures would follow.

Nonetheless, on January 24, the BBC said “President Nicolas Sarkozy is expected to sign the bill into law before the end of February,” ahead of April presidential elections. In fact, his UMP party proposed it. Enactment seems assured.

Moreover, an estimated 500,000 Armenians live in France. Sarkozy’s trailing in the polls. Signing’s perhaps a way to improve his chances. At this point, they’re shaky at best.

Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Edward Nalbanian said:

“This day will be written in gold not only in the history of friendship between the Armenian and French peoples, but also in the annals of the history of the protections of human rights.”

Perhaps he didn’t read Reynald Secher’s book titled, “A French Genocide: The Vendee,” in which he called France’s actions against the anti-clerical Republican government during the French Revolution the first modern genocide. He also ignored France’s complicity with America’s modern genocidal history.

Today’s Zaman, Turkey’s English language broadsheet, reacted to France’s new law headlining, “France ignores Turkish warnings, passes Armenian ‘genocide’ bill,” saying:

On Monday, France’s Senate passed “a controversial law making it a crime to deny the 1915 killings of Armenians was a genocide….” The lower House passed it earlier.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned hours before enactment that the measure “runs a high risk of wrecking Turkish-French ties….” He said Ankara would retaliate.

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said measures have “already been determined.” AK Party Deputy Chairman Omer Celik indicated they’ll be permanent, not temporary. Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag added:

“It is clear (that) relations between Turkey and France will not be the same.”

Armenia’s History

Armenia’s located at the crossroads of three continents – Europe, Asia, and Africa. It’s bounded by the Caucasus Mountains and Black Sea to the North, the Caspian Sea to the East, the Syrian Desert to the South, Anatolia to the West, and the Mediterranean Sea to the Southwest.

Historically, it’s been divided between Ottoman Turkey, Russia and Persia. What remains of Armenia became Soviet Russia’s smallest republic in 1920. From 1918 – 1920, it was independent. In 1991, it regained independence when the Soviet Union dissolved. Currently, it borders Turkey, Georgia, Iran and Azerbaijan.

It was established around 7,000 BC. In 301 AD, it was the first country to accept Christianity as state religion. In the 11th century, Ottoman Turks invaded. In the 16th century, Armenia became part of their empire.

In the 19th century, Greeks, Serbs and Romanians won independence. By WW I in 1914, Arabs and Armenians remained under Ottoman rule. As it weakened and broke down, Armenian repression increased.

Called “infidels,” discriminatory taxes were levied. Persecutions escalated. Tyranny followed. In some areas, Armenians were afraid to speak their language openly or read books on Armenian history.

In fact, Sultan Abdul Hamid (Ottoman ruler from 1876 – 1909) banned many. He established censorship to exclude Western ideas and thought.

From 1894 – 1896, responding to reform demands, pogroms massacred around 300,000 Armenians. In 1909, another 30,000 were killed in the Cilicia region.

Armenians responded in self-defense. Ottomans feared losing them entirely. At the turn of the century, they demanded democratic reforms and constitutional government.

In 1908, Turkish nationalists gained control. Armenian elation faded when terror tactics followed.

Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha, Djemal Pasha, and others like them subscribed to elitist/racist Pan-Turkism. They believed Turkey was for Turks alone. Pluralism assuring equal rights for all minorities was rejected. Armenians threatened their ideology. Eliminating them became policy. On the eve of WW I, Ottomans were in crisis.

The 1915 – 1922 Genocide

In 1914, over 2.5 million Armenians lived in Ottoman Turkey. Today, only 100,000 remain. Mostly they reside in Istanbul and Western areas. The Eastern Armenian heartland was decimated.

On April 24, 1915, hundreds of Armenian religious, political and intellectual leaders were arrested, detained or exiled. Most were eventually slaughtered.

Within several months, about 250,000 Ottoman army Armenians were placed in forced labor battalions. They were over-worked, starved, or executed.

Without leaders or able-bodied youths, ethnic cleansing occurred throughout Ottoman Turkey and Asia Minor. Death marches followed. Men and older boys were separated and executed. Women and children were force-marched, raped, tortured, and otherwise abused. Most deportees died of starvation, disease, or massacres.

About 500,000 escaped to Russia, Arab countries, Europe or America. Ottoman Armenia was virtually eliminated.

A Final Comment

In 1918, Henry Morgenthau, US ambassador to Turkey, said:

“When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race: they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.”

“I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.”

Morgenthau perhaps couldn’t envision later WW II atrocities, nor America’s subsequent genocidal history. He also ignored its past, including waging war against Native Americans, African Americans, poor and disadvantaged ones, and women.

Historian/activist Howard Zinn wrote how since inception, America committed “genocide, brutally and purposefully….in the name of progress.” Our leaders then buried ugly truths “in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth.”

At home, profit over human lives and welfare took millions of working American lives. Abroad it was far worse through direct or proxy wars, death squads, torture, occupations, alliances with despots, and neglect. Against Native and Black Americans, it was worst of all.

Over centuries, America reduced its indigenous population to at most 3% of its original total. In his book titled, “A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present,” Ward Churchill said:

Millions were “hacked apart with axes and swords, burned alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meathooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic diseases.”

Shockingly, “every one of these practices (still continues in new forms). The American holocaust was and remains unparalleled, in terms of its scope, ferocity and continuance over time.” Today, its entirely suppressed in mainstream discourse.

The African holocaust was just as grim. It resulted from 500 years of colonialization, oppression, exploitation, and slavery, much of it trafficked to America. Black Africans were captured, branded, chained, force-marched to ports, beaten, kept in cages, stripped of their humanity, and often their lives.

Around 100 million or more were sold like cattle. Millions perished during the Middle Passage. They were packed like cargo under deplorable conditions in coffin-sized spaces, sometimes atop one another.

They experienced extreme discomfort because of poor ventilation, little or no sanitation, and overall appalling conditions. As a result, dysentery, smallpox, ophthalmia (causing blindness) and other diseases became epidemics. Conditions below deck were dark, filthy, slimy, full of blood, vomit, and human excrement.

Women were beaten and raped. For some, claustrophobia caused insanity. Others were flogged or clubbed to death. Anyone thought to be diseased was dumped overboard like garbage. Arrivals with three-fourths of human cargos were considered successful voyages. The Middle Passage claimed as many as half of those trafficked. Estimates range up to 50 million lives lost.

Zinn called American slavery “the most cruel form in history: the frenzy for limitless profit that comes from capitalistic agriculture; the reduction of the slave to less than human status by the use of racial hatred, with that relentless clarity based on color, where white was master, black was slave.”

Is it any different now? In today’s America, thousands of garment factory sweatshops exploit workers with poverty wages, few if any benefits, and long hours in unsafe conditions.

Two million or more farm workers are abused. They live in sub-poverty misery and no protections, even for children. In Florida and perhaps elsewhere, lax federal and state oversight lets owners chain workers to poles, lock them in trucks, physically beat them, and cheat them out of pay.

They also perform dangerous jobs and live in unsafe environments, contaminated by toxic chemicals. As a result, about 300,000 suffer pesticide poisoning annually. Many others experience disabling accidents.

Millions of other American workers are also exploited and abused. They range from Wal-Mart and similar enterprises to domestic servitude, restaurant and hotel workers, non-union factory ones, women forced into prostitution, and sexually exploited children.

Turkey’s Armenian genocide was one of history’s great crimes. America exceeded it manyfold, especially through permanent imperial wars taking many millions of lives and causing incalculable human misery.

Raging unchecked today, victor’s justice alone triumphed.

Posted in EducationComments Off on The Armenian Genocide

JFK Special: Oswald was in the Doorway, after all!


by Dr. Ralph Cinque and Jim Fetzer


The release of the notes taken by Dallas Police Department Homicide Detective Will Fritz during his interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspected assassin of President John F. Kennedy, in which Lee told Fritz that he was “out with Bill Shelly in front” has resurrected a debate of long-standing over whether Oswald was the “Doorway Man” in the famous photograph taken during the assassination by Associated Press photographer James “Ike” Altgens.

In this study, we examine that question. Dr. Fetzer had previously concluded that Oswald was another figure in the Altgens photo, namely, the man who is standing to the right/front of Doorway Man as viewed in the photograph (to Doorway Man’s left/front from his perspective) but whose face and shirt have been obliterated. New observations, first advanced by Ralph Cinque, have convinced Fetzer that Cinque is right: the man in the doorway was Lee Harvey Oswald, after all.

In addition to Cinque’s arguments that the man in the doorway was wearing Oswald’s shirt, Fetzer adds the complementary argument that the shirt of the other figure had to be obscured for the obvious reason that it would have given the game away, which explains why his shirt as well as his face had to be removed. Doorway Man’s face, hairline and the pattern of his shirt were “tweaked” to more closely resemble Lovelady or his face may have been transferred to him, but the form, the fit, and the lay of his man’s outer-shirt and under-shirt are those of Oswald. So, unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald’s clothing, the evidence that we present leaves no room for reasonable doubt.

The Will Fritz Notes

In JFK: What We Know Now That We Didn’t Know Then (Veterans Today, 21 November 2011), Dr. James H. Fetzer provides a valuable summation of recent advances in JFK assassination research, including the discovery of the written notes of Detective Will Fritz concerning Oswald’s whereabouts during the shooting, as mentioned above. That Oswald told Fritz that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front” contravenes the established belief that he said he was in the lunchroom, where he was shortly before and would be confronted shortly after. Here are those notes:

Will Fritz’ handwritten interrogation notes

Will Fritz’ typed interrogation notes

This discovery led Dr. Fetzer to take another look at the Altgens, where he noticed that one of the faces had been obfuscated. See the object in the red circle below. Since the hairline looks like Oswald’s and Oswald had told Fritz he had been there, which should have been easy to confirm, he drew the inference that that person must have been Lee:

Fetzer’s hypothesis: The man with no face was Oswald

While the identity of the Man in the Doorway has been long disputed and generally supposed to be not Lee Oswald but Billy Lovelady, Ralph Cinque’s approach has been to focus on the shirt that the Doorway Man was wearing and to compare it with those worn by Lovelady and by Lee. While apologists for the Warren Report like to claim that Lee was on the 6thfloor firing at Kennedy, there are multiple witnesses who saw him both in and around the lunchroom at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM and as late as 12:25 PM, as Dr. Fetzer explains in his study.

Since Lee was “the patsy,” and the conspirators were committed to that course, they had to seize the Altgens photo and obfuscate his image, according to Dr. Fetzer. But which figure was he? Even Oliver Stone concluded that, although Doorway Man bore a strong resemblance to Oswald, he actually was Lovelady. Most JFK researchers concluded the same thing, including Dr. Fetzer. But, I maintain that the likenesses to Lovelady, such as the hairline and the shirt pattern, were faked, and that other, more compelling evidence, especially relating to their respective shirts, proves that the Doorway Man was Oswald.

It’s easy to see why Warren Report devotees jumped on the bandwagon to endorse the Lovelady hypothesis and declare the matter settled. But, to my dying day, I will never understand why conspiracy researchers, of all stripes, were ever willing to concede that point, especially in light of all of the known subterfuge in the handling of evidence in this case.

Consider: The Zapruder film: altered; the medical evidence: altered; the President’s wounds: altered; the autopsy photos: altered; the alleged murder weapon: altered; the limousine: altered; and on and on. Dr. Fetzer’s three books on the assassination, Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000) and The Great Zarpruder Film Hoax (2003), are dedicated to sorting out the authentic from the non-authentic evidence. Why would a conspiracy advocate not assume that the Altgens photo might also have been altered?

Was there any chance that local or federal officials would release a photo of Oswald standing outside that building even if he was there? Weren’t they vigorously, adamantly, and doggedly committed to the lone gunman theory, to incriminating Oswald? Was there any chance they would do otherwise? By the time that blow-up of Doorway Man came out, they had already “crossed the Rubicon” as far as blaming Oswald. Skepticism among researchers and truth-seekers should have reigned then–and it should still reign today!

The Shirt as the Key

As I see it, the shirt is the key to identifying the Doorway Man. They obfuscated the features of the man to Doorway Man’s left/front (from his perspective, right/front viewing him), but they left him, Doorway Man, largely intact. So we have the whole layout of him, with the unbuttoned, loose-fitting outer shirt and the v-necked t-shirt underneath–just as we see on Oswald.

I maintain that, while they were able to change some details, such as the hairline and the pattern of the shirt, which are features most often cited to support the Lovelady idea, they could not change the structural features of the outer-shirt or the way it hung over the t-shirt–and that that turns out to be the smoking gun.

Here in the high-tech world of 2012, the prospect of adding lines and blotches to a digital shirt to alter its pattern, to make it look more checkered and like Lovelady’s, is not only possible, but something that anyone can do. Ever hear of Photoshop? And forget Photoshop. Let’s take it down a notch.

I have watched my 6 year old granddaughter playing a computer game in which she changes the pattern of a little girl’s dress on the screen just by hitting a key. And I know that I myself could alter the hairline in a photo because I have done it. Using Picassa, I altered the hairline of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Here is what I did: In Picassa, under “Basic Fixes”, I chose “Retouch” and then I choose the smallest possible “Brush Size”. After clicking right at his hairline to indicate the target site, I duplicated a piece of clear skin from his forehead and moved it up to that little spot on his hairline and–presto! He instantly became more receding. It looked pretty authentic, too, I must say.

Now, I realize that back in 1963 there was no Picassa nor was there Photoshop. But just because they didn’t exist on the consumer level doesn’t mean that those capacities didn’t exist at all. Remember, this was during the Cold War, and there was a lot of espionage and counter-espionage going on, where altering photos was well-entrenched as a tactic of espionage. If you are willing to accept that they were able to alter the Zapruder film, then you have to concede that they had the ability to alter stills, as the Zapruder film was just a series of still photos, rapidly sequenced. And as we will explain, there are many anomalies in the Altgens photo which scream that it was altered.

But now, let’s compare these two photos to see the very strong resemblance between Lee Oswald and Doorway Man:

 Look at the obvious similarities in body size and type, the shape of the head, the shape of the face, and, of course, the clothing. Look at the unusual manner in which the shirt is being worn: unbuttoned, except at the bottom. He looks a lot like Oswald, doesn’t he?

When we consider just the loose-fitting, long-sleeved, unbuttoned outer-shirt over the v-necked t-shirt, it is distinctive in itself. How likely is it that Lovelady happened to get up that morning and dress himself the same way? What were the mathematical chances of that? Well, let’s use the Altgens photo as an example:

The Altgens’ photograph with the man in the doorway

Variations in Men’s Clothing

Let’s consider the variations in men’s clothing that we can see just in this one picture. And we won’t consider the policemen in their uniforms or the Secret Service agents in their suits. On the far right, there is a man wearing a jacket and white shirt. Between the rear cars, there is a man wearing a solid white shirt on the left, and a man wearing a solid black shirt on the right. In front of the façade of the building, there is a man wearing a fedora hat. The man to the left of Doorway Man with his hands raised seems to be wearing just a t-shirt with no outer shirt. The man to the right of Doorway Man is wearing a suit jacket and a fedora hat, and eerily, he is looking at Doorway Man instead of at the President. What’s up with that? Unfortunately, there are a lot more women in this picture than men, but further down to our left, there is an African-American man who is wearing a white, short-sleeved shirt.

So, every one of those men is dressed differently than Doorway Man, as we would expect. Clothing choices are quite plentiful. They are practically unlimited. To suggest that Doorway Man is Lovelady is to suggest that a tremendous coincidence took place that day, which is, that Lovelady and Oswald showed up to work as virtual twins. It’s not just that they wore the same clothes but that they wore them in the exact same manner- and an unconventional manner at that. Again, what are the odds? When you have a controversy and someone tries to tell you that an unlikely event happened by coincidence, you have every right to be skeptical.

The shirts look big on both Oswald and Doorway Man. Doorway Man is swimming in his; it’s billowing; and in Oswald, the material is bunching up and folding over. And in other pictures of Oswald, the shirt also looks big on him. So, that would have been another coincidence between Oswald and Lovelady, that they both just happened to wear large, loose-fitting shirts that day. We know that that is not true of Lovelady. We have a picture of him from that day, namely:

Does that look loose-fitting? I don’t think so. If anything, it looks tight. Across the chest, there is no excess capacity. In fact, that may be why his collar is flipping up. Also, you can see no loose material around the shoulder. It isn’t hanging low at the shoulder. At the bottom it’s wrinkled a little, but overall, the shirt seems snug. And notice that, unlike Doorway Man and Oswald, Lovelady’s shirt is mostly buttoned. Only the top button is unbuttoned, which is typical.

The above picture of Lovelady was taken on the day of the assassination after Oswald was arrested. If Lovelady was the Doorway Man, when did he button-up? And why was his shirt unbuttoned in the first place? We know why Oswald’s shirt was unbuttoned: his buttons were missing. But Lovelady’s buttons were not missing. So, why was he dressed so slovenly during the motorcade? And why did he fix himself up afterwards? And exactly when did he do so? To the best of our knowledge, nobody asked him. No one in the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, nor the Warren Commission thought it was important.

Obfuscating the Evidence

Let’s acknowledge that this whole controversy could have been easily resolved at the time. They had Lovelady; he had his shirt; they had Altgens; he had his camera. They could have put Lovelady on the landing in his same clothes and put Altgens on the spot from which he took his famous picture and then tried to duplicate it. Why didn’t they do it? The answer should be obvious. They were not trying to solve the crime but to frame the patsy. And they would do nothing to undermine that effort.

But, let’s continue our three-way comparison. Both Doorway Man and Oswald were wearing “v-necked” t-shirts. Was Lovelady? Well, we have three pictures of Lovelady, and in two of them he is clearly wearing a round-necked t-shirt. One of them was taken shortly after the assassination by the FBI, while the other was taken several years later. Most men wear one or the other. It’s like boxers or briefs. The third photo is the same one of Lovelady that you see above, taken on the day of the assassination. To my eye, as I blow the picture up, it looks like he is wearing a round-neck t-shirt. It certainly does not have that notched, descending quality that you see on Doorway Man and Oswald.

To head off an objection, I’ll admit that some have tried to say that the t-shirts are not v-necked. It’s just that the material is worn and stretched and pulled down. Dr. Fetzer informs me that Oswald tended to pull on the neck of his t-shirts. But both of them? That would amount to yet another coincidence between Oswald and Lovelady, that they shared the same quirk. And, in all the pictures we have of Lovelady, his t-shirts look pristine, undamaged. So, that is really just another arbitrary “what if”.

Much has been made of the pattern of Doorman’s shirt looking more like Lovelady’s. But, what if the white blotches had been added? If you look at the areas between the white blotches, you see that they look “grainy” much like Oswald’s tweed shirt. And what’s that black blotch above Doorman’s wrist? And there is another black blotch higher up on the other side. Don’t trust anything about that pattern. That plaid effect could easily have been faked. It was just a matter of overexposing and underexposing areas to create alternating darkness and light. And note that the pattern of the shirt was the only thing about it that matched Lovelady. Everything else about the shirt matched Oswald. And the pattern was hardly a great match to Lovelady. You see white blotches on Doorman’s shirt, but on Lovelady’s shirt, it’s only the lines between squares that are white. That inconsistency is disturbing.

The differences in the hair and the hairline would have been very easy to alter, especially since Doorway Man’s hair merges with the dark murky space above his head. The differences in minute facial details that tend to resemble Lovelady are subtle and could have been “fine tuned” or via a facial transfer. That, after all, is what they did with the backyard photographs, where Oswald’s face was imposed upon someone else’s body. They could just as easily imposed Lovelady’s face on Oswald’s body.

But, there is one more thing about Oswald’s shirt, and it’s what started me down this whole road in the first place, and that is: the lay of the shirt. It was a very unusual shirt he was wearing. It was very different from the ordinary, plaid, flannel shirt of Lovelady. Oswald’s shirt looks rather tweedy, and it had the uncanny tendency to fold over into a neat lapel below the collar, especially on the left side. We’ll look at it, but first, let’s look at an ordinary shirt, one worn by Billy Lovelady.

FBI photo of Lovelady wearing the shirt he told them he had worn

This picture was taken of Lovelady shortly after the assassination by the FBI. They asked him to leave his shirt unbuttoned, presumably to show that he could have been the Doorway Man. Notice that the margin of the shirt rises vertically and angles out as it approaches the collar. That’s the normal pattern that you typically see with most shirts. You know it isn’t a lapel. Now compare that with these pictures of Oswald:


 Do you notice how nicely the material folds over on his left side? It really does look like a lapel, doesn’t it? And whether it is really a lapel or a pseudo-lapel doesn’t matter. The point is that it’s folding over very nicely, very neatly, and it’s staying down, like a lapel. Here’s another photo of Oswald to compare with Doorway Man.

 You may need a magnifying glass and bright light to see clearly, but on Oswald’s right, which is your left, you can see the collar and a small lapel, and it looks uncannily like Doorway Man’s. Shift your eyes back and forth and compare. Then, on Oswald’s left, which is your right, you can see the prominent lapel. It looks more like a jacket than a shirt. With Doorway Man on his left side, it’s rather hazy, but the material does look thicker on that side. I believe it is thicker because the material is folded over, doubled over, into a lapel. Compare it to his right side, which looks weak and flimsy.

And what is that white striping over Doorway Man’s left shoulder? It looks like some kind of artifact, but was it accidental or put there on purpose? Were they trying to prevent us from seeing his left collar? I think that if those stripes weren’t there, the resemblance of those two left collars would be riveting and startling.

Some have suggested that that white artifact is really another man, and that the line between the white stripes is his black tie. Hence, he is “Black Tie Man”. But, it is one freaky image. Why is the top of his head missing? And, is he standing in front of or behind Doorman? If he is behind, as he seems to be, then how is it that he is covering up Doorman’s shoulder? And if he is in front, how is it that Doorman is covering up his shoulder? How can they both be covering up each other’s shoulder at the same time? One of them should have a visible shoulder. It’s like they are conjoined twins. If that is a man, it is one weird fusion of two people, and surely, it is photographically impossible. No physical arrangement of two people could produce an image like that. And I think I know the explanation for it: it’s fake. The conspirators were making sure that we couldn’t see Doorway Man’s left collar because if we did, the resemblance to Oswald’s would have been so striking, the jig would have been up long ago. Take a look at this close-up of Oswald’s shirt, and focus on his left side, with the collar, the lapel, and the button-loop jutting out at the top of the lapel. It’s very distinctive and unusual, and they had to cover it up. That was the purpose of Black Tie Man.

Here is what I consider to be the money shot. It’s a comparison of Doorman’s and Oswald’s right collars. Notice how perfectly they match. And it’s not typical for most shirts because the margins here are rising quite vertically on both. Do you think that Lovelady’s shirt behaved like that? It did not.

 And why did they take away Oswald’s shirt and march him around in a t-shirt? It was practically December in Dallas. He complained about it, too. He wanted to know why he couldn’t have his shirt back. Were they trying to keep us from forming too many visual and mental images of him in that shirt?

Now let’s do the same kind of analysis between Lovelady and Doorway Man. The picture on the left was taken years after the assassination, where he is supposed to be all dressed up like Doorway Man.

 It’s amazing to me that Dr. Megen Knuth, who writes for Dr. John McAdams on his JFK website, had the nerve and the gall to say that the above picture of Billy Lovelady “was entirely consistent with all the photos from the day of the assassination.” Oh, really? No one who has read this study this far, I think, would be inclined to agree with that.

Lovelady’s attempt to duplicate the appearance of Doorway Man strikes me as pathetic. First, he’s got that shirt pressed with an iron. That is not the natural lay and look of that shirt–and it is certainly not the way he wore it on November 22. Second, look at the exposed button. That button would have been secured. Third, higher up, his shirt would have spread apart in the normal fashion and not be all pressed down . Remember how his collar was flipping up on Assassination Day? It isn’t doing that here. It practically looks sewn down, although I’m sure it’s just pressed down. The margin of Doorway Man’s shirt is rising vertically, whereas Lovelady’s is going off at a steep angle. Fourth, notice how Doorway Man’s shirt is billowing, even sprawling, while Lovelady’s looks sleek and tight. No way is that the same fit. No way is that the same shirt.

Billy Lovelady surely knew that he did not go to work that way on 22 November 1963. So at the time this latter picture was taken, he was a minor part of the conspiracy; he was engaged in a fraud. But it may well have been involuntary. More than 100 witnesses related to the assassination came to untimely ends. Perhaps he did not want to join them.

But, alas, Billy Lovelady died of a fatal first heart attack at the young age of 42 right before he was to testify before the House Subcommittee on Assassinations in 1979. The odds of that happening were less than 1 in 10,000. Notice also that Lovelady is wearing a round-necked t-shirt. It’s ironic that, even when he is trying to look like Doorway Man, it doesn’t occur to him to wear a v-necked t-shirt.

Other weird figures in the Altgens

Let’s look at some other disturbing features of the Altgens photo.

Let’s look at some other disturbing features of the Altgens photo.

Consider the man next to Doorway Man, who is wearing a t-shirt with his arms raised. Notice he has no head. Why does he have no head? It seems strange, doesn’t it? Some have tried to tell me that it was due to shading from the lintel, but why just his head so exclusively? He’s like the Headless Horseman. And his arms are very wide–too wide to blacken his whole face. No way are his arms blocking the light.

And next to his right arm, you see a weird white blotch, what looks like an artifact. But you can also make out the outline of another man’s head. And below his head, you see his body in black, presumably as though he were wearing a black sweater, where the black of his sweater merges with the black of the hair of the African-American woman in front of him. And thereby his whole presence is very cleverly disguised. Who is he? Dr. Fetzer, when he encountered the obliteration of the face, thought that that must have been Lee Oswald. The obliteration of the shirt as well as the face, however, has caused him to reconsider.

My argument is that, since Doorway Man is wearing Oswald’s unique clothing, he has to have been Oswald. And that means that the likenesses to Lovelady have to have been faked. Clearly, no one was attempting to exonerate Oswald by inserting him into the Altgens. On the contrary, a concerted effort was being made to frame him for the crime, which included faking the backyard photographs and planting his palm print on the Mannlicher-Carcano, as others have long since explained. So, we have no reason to suspect that likenesses to Oswald were superimposed over Lovelady. It could only have been the other way around. And Lovelady would not have been wearing Oswald’s shirt.

Moreover, if Oswald was in front of Lovelady, Lovelady would have seen him, which he didn’t report doing. And I do not presume that Lovelady was lying that early in the investigation. He had the courage to tell the Warren Commission and the FBI that he thought the shots came from the Grassy Knoll. He was standing right below the supposed sniper’s nest, and yet, he never said that the shots came from overhead, as they wanted to hear. So, if he was willing to tell the truth about the direction of the shots, then I presume that he also told them the truth about not having seen Oswald.

Read through Lovelady’s testimony to the Warren Commission, as I have. He starts out observing that he was on the same floor as was Oswald and that everyone was coming down the elevator to go outside and watch the motorcade, when Oswald yelled to them to hold the elevator for him. But they didn’t do it, whether it was inadvertent or deliberate. And so Oswald missed that elevator and had to wait for the next one. So, there are good reasons to think that Oswald was later getting outside than the others.

Notice that Lovelady’s testimony already suggests that Oswald was not on the 6th floor. Now, what do people do when they are forming a line or a group that is facing a certain direction? Everyone goes forward. That’s because they know that other people are coming in from behind to fill up the space. If you got there first, would you stop on the landing so that others had to move around you? Of course not. And why wouldn’t you want to be as close to the front as possible?

Since Lovelady got outside before Oswald, it means that we should find Lovelady in front of Oswald in the crowd and not behind him. And if Oswald was behind him, then it is not unreasonable to suppose that Lovelady didn’t see him.

It’s true that nobody that we know of reported seeing Oswald outside. But, take a look at Doorway Man. Can you see that he is standing partially behind the pillar? Doesn’t it seem possible that he could have slipped in back there at the last second and have been hardly noticed?

A “more reasonable” explanation

Remember that all the attention, all the focus, all the eyes, were to the front. What I am suggesting is a more credible scenario than placing Oswald in front of several people and their saying that they didn’t see him. To use Dr. Fetzer’s phrasing, mine appears to be a “more reasonable alternative explanation.”

And at this point in time, I am very glad to say that Dr. Fetzer has expressed his agreement with me. Our contention is that the obfuscated man in front of Doorway Man appears to have been the real Lovelady. Once it was decided to convert Oswald into Lovelady, they had to get rid of the real Lovelady–which they did.

Finally, here is another, larger take of the above picture.

Do you see the man on the left in the Fedora hat? He bears a striking resemblance to Jack Ruby. Dr. Fetzer agrees and says so in his article. In fact, I didn’t notice it until he pointed it out. And doesn’t it look as though he is looking at Doorway Man? Why is he looking at Doorway Man while the President is driving by? And why do the Secret Service agents seem to be looking at Doorway Man? Perhaps they’re just looking at the crowd in general, but it looks to me as though they realized it was Oswald.

Still it does look, eerily, like all three of them are focused on Doorway Man. And if so, what interest could they possibly have had in Doorway Man if Doorway Man was Billy Lovelady? He had no connections to Ruby, which Lee Oswald most certainly had. And he didn’t have any connections to any clandestine agencies of the federal government, which Lee Oswald most certainly had.

And just look at that hair on the African-American woman on our right. A beautiful cheerful smile, a radiant face, but look how the contour of her hair looks fake, artificial, and exaggerated. Compare it to the hair on the woman next to her, which looks natural and normal. My guess is that they exaggerated her hair to further obfuscate the features of the man behind her, namely, Billy Lovelady. His shirt had such a distinct pattern that it had to be covered-up and blackened out, a question to which I return below.

Weisberg’s doubts about Lovelady’s shirt

There is some uncertainty about which of his shirts Lovelady actually wore that day. In his book, PHOTOGRAPHIC WHITEWASH (1967), Harold Weisberg displayed an FBI document in which Billy Lovelady testified that he wore a red and white vertically striped shirt that day and not the checkered one. Dated 3/2/64, its key passages are as follows:

BILLY NOLAN LOVELADY appeared at the Dallas FBI Office at which time he consented to being photographed.

LOVELADY advised that, on the day of the assassination of President JOHN F. KENNEDY November 22, 1963, at the time of the assassination and shortly before, he was standing in the doorway of the front entrance to the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, where he is employed. He stated he was wearing a red and white vertically striped shirt and blue jeans.

LOVELADY stated that his picture has appeared in several publications which depicts him on the far left side of the front doorway of the TSBD. Lovelady was exhibited a picture appearing on pages 4-5 of the magazine entitled “Four Dark Days in History”, Copyright 1963 by Special Publications, Inc. LA, CA. He immediately identified the picture of the individual on the far left side of the doorway of the TSBD as being his photograph. He stated that this same photograph or one identical to it has appeared in the Dallas Times Herald newspaper of November 23, 1963 and in the Cincinnati Inquirer of December 3, 1963. It also appeared in an edition of the Saturday Evening Post the date of which he does not know [which was the December 14, 1963 issue.] (PHOTOGRAPHIC WHITEWASH, p. 194)

Since Lovelady identified himself as Doorway Man, which now appears to be false, we have to wonder why he did it. He must have known that it was expected of him. He may have been threatened. His family may have been threatened. He may have been bribed. And his untimely death from a first heart attack at the age of 42 is very disturbing, considering how fit he looked. As JFK observed, “Life is not fair!”

The complementary argument

The subtleties of the shirt of Doorway Man have been missed by several generations of JFK students. But it was a very distinctive shirt and had features that were not present on the checkered shirt that Lovelady was alleged to have worn that day. If the checkered shirt was the shirt that Lovelady wore that day, then he was not Doorway Man. And if he was wearing the vertically striped shirt instead, then the argument is even more compelling. The complementary argument can therefore be made about both: since the shirt that the man whose face was obliterated WAS ALSO OBLITERATED, there had to have been something distinctive about the shirt that required concealment. When Lovelady subsequently demonstrated the shirt he said he was wearing for the FBI–with its broad and bright strips–it became obvious why they had to obfuscate the shirt as well as the face.

So either way–whether Lovelady was wearing either the checkered shirt or the vertically striped shirt–the shirt being worn by “Obfuscated Man” had to be blackened out, which it was. That there is a real issue of importance here is confirmed by the tactics adopted by Professor John McAdams, perhaps the most vociferous defender of the “lone nut” theory. On his website, McAdams admits that in a letter to the Warren Commission, the FBI stated that Billy Lovelady told them that,

On February 29, 1964, Billy Nolan Lovelady was photographed by Special Agents of the FBI at Dallas, Texas. On this occasion, Lovelady advised that on the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, November 22, 1963, at the time of the assassination, and shortly before, he was standing in the doorway of the front entrance to the TSBD where he is employed. He stated he was wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue-jeans (CD 457, pp. 4-5).

Vertically striped shirt he told the FBI he was wearing

Even though the FBI photos show Lovelady in a red and white vertical striped, short sleeved shirt, McAdams suggests this was simply a “misunderstanding” and that Lovelady later recanted and said that he was wearing the checkered shirt instead. But that’s quite a stretch. Many of the Parkland doctors were harassed and intimidated to change their observations and findings, where Malcolm Perry, M.D., was a classic example. Having three times described the shot to JFK’s throat as a wound of entry, he was subjected to mental and emotional abuse. It is overwhelmingly more likely that Lovelady was threatened to revert to the checkered shirt than that he would “mistakenly” appear in the vertically striped shirt for an interview with the FBI.

Three Shirts and a “Magic Button”

There are several more pictures worth looking at because they make the case even stronger for Oswald being the Doorway Man. Remember, the whole case is built around the proposition that unusual coincidences are suspect. They just don’t happen. When you see a lot of likenesses between two figures, there is probably a lot more to it than sheer luck. The first picture is a collage of the three right collars: Doorman’s, Oswald’s, and Lovelady’s. You can see the likeness of Doorman’s and Oswald’s, but Lovelady’s looks different. His shirt is folding over at a different angle. That is significant; it is not trivial. Cast your eyes back and forth and see.

And while discounting the difference between color and black and white, you should still note the tremendous contrast and pattern of Lovelady’s collar and compare it to the bland and uniform patterns of Oswald’s and Doorman’s. Of course, Oswald’s collar looks bland and uniform because it was, as we have seen in all of his pictures. But, what about Doorman’s? If he is Lovelady, shouldn’t we see some evidence of that rich, exorbitant, and complicated pattern in his collar? And if you think it’s because the collar is too small to show the contrast, realize that you can find comparable areas on the sleeve and body of Doorman’s shirt which do show contrast.

Of course, Dr. Fetzer and I maintain that the pattern elsewhere on the shirt was “touched up”. The plain truth is that when committing a forgery of this kind, it’s difficult to cover every detail. A lot slips through the cracks. And they forgot about the collar. Besides, the pattern of Doorman’s shirt does not make a good match to Lovelady’s- in any respect. For example, the only thing white on Lovelady’s shirt are the lines, so why are there white blotches on Doorman’s shirt? Remember, this isn’t horseshoes or hand grenades. Close isn’t good enough. Either it is an exact match or no match at all. There can’t be contradictions in the patterns. None.

Notice also the exposed button, what I have come to call the “Magic Button.” You’ve heard of the Magic Bullet? Well, say hello to the Magic Button. It is “magical” because such a small, ordinary, inconsequential, everyday object is exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald for all time. The presence of that button proves that the normal use of that shirt was to button it up, including that button, and when it is buttoned, that spreading effect of the margins of the shirt that you see, creating that space, goes away. Lovelady took action to make his shirt lay the way you see it here–and he did it for the camera–whereas the configurations you see on Oswald and Doorman were spontaneous. That’s a big difference. Lovelady did not wake up on the morning of 22 November 1963 and do those things. And it proves that when the picture below was taken, Lovelady was part of the conspiracy. He was trying hard to be the Doorman, but he wasn’t thinking very clearly. He should have removed that button.

Do you remember those IQ tests where you had to pick out the dissimilar item from a lineup? Try it here. Who is the odd man out among these three? Just look for that “magic button”.Next, we have a collage of Oswald and his shirt from the National Archives. When you look closely, you can see that there is only one button remaining on Oswald’s shirt , (referring to the one he is wearing) and it is the very bottom button. For some reason, the shirt from the National Archives has two bottom buttons. Hmmm. I don’t know what to make of that. I have heard of buttons popping off, but have you heard of them popping on? You may need a magnifying glass to see it, but there is exactly one button at the bottom of Oswald’s shirt that he is wearing.

But now follow me: On Doorman (above and below), it looks like he has, perhaps, the three bottom buttons buttoned. See what you think. It may be only 2, but certainly no more than 3. But if the arrested Oswald only had one button, what do we make of that? Was there a progressive loss of buttons? I say, “Yes.” I say Lee started the day with no upper buttons but with 2 or 3 lower buttons. But during his scuffle with the police at the Texas Theater, more buttons came off, at least one, and perhaps two.

And that occurred because the shirt was already open and gaping which provided leverage–a hook–for force to be applied to remove those buttons. Plus, it was a well-worn shirt that had already lost buttons, so the thread of the remaining buttons was weak and vulnerable. And that is why he lost one or more buttons during the ruckus. The stitching was getting threadbare and susceptible.

Note that buttons don’t usually come off in a fight. And in this case, the fight was very short; not more than a few seconds. How long do you think it took them to subdue him? It wasn’t long. But, that already battered shirt got even more battered during that brief altercation, and because of its susceptibility, another button or two came off, and that’s why we see Oswald with hardly any buttons left afterward. The progressive loss of buttons also supports the idea that Doorman’s shirt and Oswald’s were one and the same.

“Once more, with feeling!”

Now here is a collage consisting of Doorman and another attempt by Lovelady to look like Doorman. Notice again the exposed button on Lovelady. I am sure there was another unbuttoned one above that one, although we can’t see it because it’s shaded. Or did he remove it? Perhaps he wised up this time and did so. Remember, that shirt would normally be buttoned up– except for the top button. That is the normal way to wear it, and that spreading effect you see on Lovelady is contrived, fake. He is play-acting as the Doorway Man.

Notice also how tight and sleek the shirt looks on Lovelady compared to the billowing effect you see on Doorman. Lovelady was 40 pounds heavier than Oswald, and he filled out his shirts much better. Oswald was, frankly, a scrawny guy, and he didn’t fill out his shirts very well, and that’s why you see Doorman swimming in his shirt. And notice the round-neck t-shirt on Lovelady, which is so different in form than Doorman’s. Poor Lovelady just couldn’t get it into his head that matching the t-shirts was part of the gig. No wonder they had to “heart attack” him out at age 42 before he could testify before the House Subcommittee on Assassinations. I bet that they (the conspirators) couldn’t trust him to keep his story straight. Dead men tell no tales. Look at him. Does he look like the kind of guy who would die of a first heart attack at age 42?

Look next at this image of Doorway Man with his shoulder line drawn in by me. I have it wider than it would be, just for the sake of visibility, but it is still the correct plane. How wide would it be? I can’t say for sure because I can’t see his right shoulder, but it would definitely extend into the white area. I know that by estimating the width of his collar bone or clavicle and then adding the width of the acromium process of the scapula and then allowing for reasonable musculature, particularly the cap of the deltoid. Considering the various elements, his shoulder would have to extend well into the white area. But, it doesn’t. It is being covered up by the white, which is photographically impossible. Remember that Black Tie Man is supposed to be standing behind him. How does someone standing behind block a person in front? Therefore, that is an impossible image. I am a chiropractor of 35 years experience, and I know very well where that man’s shoulder should be. Something’s missing, and it’s his shoulder.

Finally, I think this picture of Oswald is very valuable. You can see the right collar with the small, compact pseudo-lapel folding over on the right side, exactly like Doorman. And on the left you see the collar, lapel, and button loop- that very distinctive construction which had to be covered up by that phony Black Tie Man. And it’s easy to see that that shirt is quite big on him. He’s not filling it out; it’s loose on him. And, it’s easy to see that standing outside the TSBD in the open air with breezes blowing, that it would start to billow–as it did. What you are looking at here is the shirt of the Doorway Man–minus a couple more buttons. Even the cuffs of this shirt match Doorway Man’s very well.

Even when we compare the shape of the face and the head between the two, any differences are subtle and small. They could have been accomplished by “tweaking” the image. Look at them side-by-side. Even after doing all they could to lovelady-i-fy him, he still looks a great deal like Lee, where the shirt is the absolute “dead ringer”.

This should have been settled long ago. Lee Harvey Oswald WAS the Doorway man. It can’t be anyone else: not because of the face, which was apparently not his, but because of the shirt, which was. Bigger, burlier Lovelady, wearing a totally different shirt, could not possibly be him. The tremendous likeness that you see above cannot be denied or dismissed by those whose beliefs are governed by logic and evidence.

The lone-nutters will never admit it because it destroys their entire foundation. They will fight it to the end. And, the end is coming. But, if you are a conspiracy advocate, you no longer have any excuse. Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway. He is the Doorway Man. And if you accept anything about the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy, you need to accept and espouse that.

The Demise of the “Lone Nut” Theory

In conclusion, even though a lot of manipulation went into transforming Oswald into Lovelady, it didn’t work. We can still tell that it’s him, Oswald–and I would bet my life on it. The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelming, and the meager challenges to it are riddled with suspicion and doubt. The worst thing that ever happened to the JFK research community was relinquishing Doorway Man.

We need to take him back. We need to add the Altgens photo to the list of physical evidence that the conspirators altered and corrupted. We need to shout from the rooftops that Oswald could not have killed Kennedy because he was standing outside in front of the building at the time. This settles it. This ends it. This is checkmate for THE WARREN REPORT (1964).

The cover-up of the murder of President Kennedy, by our government and our media, has been going on for 48 years, and it must stop. It has been poisoning us as a people, that is, our society and our culture. To heal, to recover, and to start anew, we need to know the truth.

Consider the long-held lies that were uncovered in another country. After the Soviet Union fell, the truth about the fate of the Romanov family, at the hands of the Bolsheviks, was made public. The family was gunned down in close quarters. It was a blood bath, a slaughter, where their bodies were dissolved in acid afterwards to destroy the evidence. It was covered up for 75 years. There was also the Katyn Forest Massacre which took place in Russia during World War II in which 22,000 Poles were executed and buried in a mass grave. For decades, it was blamed on the Nazis, but it was actually carried out by the Soviet Secret Police, by order of Stalin. It took around 50 years for that lie to be dispelled.

We are now approaching the 50th anniversary of the coup d’état that killed President Kennedy and changed the whole direction of the United States–and greatly for the worse. I say we draw the line at 50 years. We can’t let this drag on into another half-century. It’s long past time for the truth to come out. The American people deserve to know who did and who did not kill JFK.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Ralph Cinque, a chiropractor, health spa operator, and entrenpreneur, has published a series of articles on JFK at His video series, “Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent”, is archived on YouTube.

James H. Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a columnist for Veterans Today, where his most recent studies of the assassination of JFK can be found.


Posted in USAComments Off on JFK Special: Oswald was in the Doorway, after all!

IRAN: Is this what NATO has in store?


by Christof Lehmann, Jim Fetzer and Joshua Blakeney


In “USA: Massive Transports of Military Equipment”, Christof Lehmann, the first author, has reported the stunning videos taken by Mr. Andrew Tuckman on 19 January 2012, who began filming this after a dozen or so train cars went by on a stretch of track south of Santa Cruz, California. “Where are the military vehicles going? Why are they being shipped? What could this possibly be for? Barack Obama, what are you up to? We want answers….”

Jim Fetzer, the second author, contacted an associate with extensive military experience, who identified them as “woodland camouflage M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles with a few HEMTT refueling trucks. They don’t appear to have been modernized since they would have been repainted TAN. They may be going to an exercise for the California National Guard–or worse going into STORAGE because the U.S. Army has gone STUPID and is pissing away its cross-country maneuver war-fighting powers in favor of foot-slogging victims with hand weapons from wheeled trucks, which are easily blown up by land mines on roads/trails.”

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Christof replied that, “from a soldier’s perspective I can follow your reasoning, of course. There are some modifications I would like you to consider, however — which is based on what we are getting via Russian Intelligence Chatter — that the US is modifying its tank warfare tactics to adopt a kind of Blitzkrieg approach such as the Germans were using. For that, of course, you need superior tanks and a vast quantity of armored vehicles – both tanks and armored personnel carriers with reasonable fighting ability. All that equipment is perfect for that.”

Jim asked, “Where do you and Russian intel believe they are going to be used? I would not rule that out.” And he replied, “They didn’t indicate where, other than hinting that Syria and Iran were the probable targets.” According to a reliable source within the European NATO admiralty, moreover, it would not be entirely off target to state that NATO could use Libya as a staging area for an attack on Syria or Iran, where a confrontation with Iran probably would include the use of neutron weapons after the initial confrontational stages after initial “provocations”-–no doubt, including a “false flag” attack and an escalation by NATO–neutron weapons would be most likely used to take out both the Iranian Navy and Iran’s missile capabilities.

The second and third authors have written about the use of the USS Vincennes as an ideal “false flag” target because, on 3 July 1988, the Vincennes had shot down Iran Air Flight 655 over the Persian Gulf, killing all of the 290 civilian passengers on board, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. This would be an ideal vessel for the staged provocation as it could be easily sold to the world as having been Iranian retribution for the 1988 downing of Flight 655, where the evident lack of motive for Iran to provoke the US and Israeli military titans would be replaced by the perceived goal of revenge. No one would stop to ask themselves why Iran would thereby invite its own national annihilation.

The latest intel that I have received is that the USS Vincennes, far from having been scrapped, has been in the Mediterranean Sea and lobbing shells to test the “Iron Dome” the US has been constructing to save Israel from destruction when the waves of missiles are directed her way after an assault on Iran! As The New York Times (17 January 2012) has recently reported, the major joint US/Israeli op that had been planned has subsequently been cancelled, where some have inferred that it was because they could no longer target the Vincennes. My latest info is that she has been replaced by the USS Enterprise, an aging nuclear-powered carrier that has suffered the effects of long-term radiation exposure to its steel and appears to be the replacement target of choice.

The use of a neutron weapon might initially seem implausible but, during a long interview with Christopher Busby, “New Bombs and War Crimes in Fallujah”, the second author learned that the epidemic of serious birth defects he was studying in Fallujah were not caused by exposure to depleted uranium, as everyone had up to that point expected, but by exposure to enriched uranium, which appears to have come from a new kind of neutron bomb, which may even have been used to convert the Twin Towers from 500,000 tons of steel and concrete into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. So we have evidence that the weapon to which the admiral referred does exist.

Attacks on the nuclear energy plants in Iran—of which there appear to be as many as eighty (80) distributed across the country—has been estimated to bring about 1,000,000 deaths of Iranians outright, with another 35,000,000 premature deaths expected as the cloud of contamination sweeps across Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India—and may contaminate all of Earth. In “5 minutes to the self-immolation of the Israeli Empire”, as the author explains, the Zionists really sincerely believe Israel has the right to all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates River in Iraq. “They believe they have the right to destroy every Muslim nation that would say ‘No’ to Zionist insanity. Why should America suffer self-immolation because Israel thinks national suicide just like at Masada is a wonderful idea?”

Some of Iran’s principal nuclear sites

American politicians appear to be following suit. GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rich Santorum, for example, have called for a “first strike” against Iran, even though there is no hard evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapons or any intention of developing them. They appear to be massively ignorant of history, since Iran has not attacked any other nation in 300 years. Not only that, but Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allowed IAEA inspectors into its facilities. Israel, by comparison, has 200-600 nuclear bombs, has not signed the NPT, and will not allow inspectors into its facilities.

Were either of these candidates successful in reaching the nation’s highest office, they would take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. But according to the Constitution, treaties have the same status under the law as the Constitution itself. These candidates appear to be oblivious of the consideration that the Hague Convention of 1899, the Kellogg-Briand Peace Treaty of 1928, and even the UN Charter obligate the US to the peaceful resolution of disputes with other countries, where a “first strike” is only permissible in response to an “imminent threat”. No one believes, even remotely, that Iran represents an imminent threat. By endorsing a first strike, therefore, these candidates are demonstrating their willingness to violate the Constitution and the oath of office they would have sworn to uphold.

In the light of recent reports (1) of the re-deployment of 12,000 US troops from Malta to Libya, reported in an article by Cynthia McKinney, (2) the ongoing covert war against Syria by NATO as well as against Iran, (3) the tense military situation between NATO countries, Syria, Iran, and (4) recent messages about Russian and Chinese military being on alert, we have considered it to be incumbent upon us to publish the videos of military equipment transportation and we ask for citizens of NATO countries to report any significant troops movements in any NATO country to nsnbc at this address: nsnbc.wordpress(at)


Posted in IranComments Off on IRAN: Is this what NATO has in store?

The War on Truth: Defending Palestinian Rights Can End Your Career


Canadian Professor Denis Rancourt Eliminated for Allowing Palestinian Activists to Speak to His Students


by Joshua Blakeney and Jim Fetzer

As sociologist James Petras has observed, our era has seen the dawn and, in large measure, the gradual fruition of the “globalization of Zionist power”, a process which Benjamin Netanyahu initiated with the publication of Terrorism: How the West Can Win (1986).

Since 9/11, a false-flag event which Israel was heavily involved in, we have not only witnessed the use of military force to shatter Arab states into smaller statelets at enormous cost to many a nation’s treasury but we have also seen our academic institutions forced to comply with the mythology that underlies the “war on terror”, which has resulted in the degradation of our public educational capacity.

Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., is a victim of this post-9/11 politicization of academia. In March of 2009, the professor of physics saw his accomplished career of 23 years abruptly brought to an end, at least temporarily, when he was dubiously fired by the University of Ottawa administration based on a litany of false-pretexts. Rancourt has always been fiercely independent intellectually and has been unwilling to aid and abet the war machine.

The University of Ottawa

Indeed, Denis challenges power whenever it should be challenged, which means that he could be described as a true revolutionary. A prominent champion of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli colonization, he was fired ostensibly because he had decided to challenge the hierarchical grading method typically employed by academics.

“My job is not to rank students for corporations”, Rancourt has stated in an interview on TV-ONTARIO. His pedagogical methodology in advanced physics courses, which was to use a student-centered individualized approach, is one widely used throughout campuses in North America. Indeed, as a nice illustration of the double standard displayed by those who used Rancourt’s grading method as a pretext for firing him, another professor at his very institution has been celebrated for using the very same teaching method. The difference between them, however, appears to be that Professor X is a supporter of Israeli colonization, whereas Rancourt is a defender of international law and of the rights of the Palestinian people.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

The contrived “false-pretexts” that have been used to oust him have been numerous and varied and provide sufficient material for several articles and even multiple books. Here is a “thumbnail sketch” of some of the horrors to which this distinguished professor has been subjected (as a recounting of his own personal experiences):

(1) Dean bursts into classroom, forced to apologize

In September 2005 the dean of the Faculty of Science barged into tenured professor Denis Rancourt’s Physics and the Environment class unannounced to the students and declared that the class was cancelled and that professor Rancourt would be removed if needed before the course could be continued. This had a lasting negative impact on the course and caused damage to the professor’s reputation and relationship to the class. The resulting grievance was settled by the union with a written apology from the university dated November 7, 2007. The university followed the dean’s in-class outburst with a letter of discipline against Rancourt for allegedly subverting the content of the course. The latter discipline and false claim of subversion were overturned by a labour arbitration award (Michel G. Picher arbitrator; June 25, 2008).

(2) Fabricated existence of a student complaint

In a letter dated October 25, 2005, the dean of the Faculty of Science threatened professor Rancourt with discipline regarding an alleged student complaint that the dean did not provide to professor Rancourt. When Rancourt grieved the matter and repeatedly asked to be shown the alleged student complaint by any mechanism (such as via a lawyer or accepted third party) to preserve the student’s identity, a student complaint about the alleged matter was never produced. Instead, the grievance process led to the dean retracting in writing (November 22, 2005) all his letters and allegations of a student complaint in view of discipline. The University never apologized for or repaired the harm from the dean’s demonstrably false claim and intimidation. (A further grievance that the dean had lied was not assumed by the professor’s union.)

Denis Rancourt was the “star professor” of the University of Ottawa until he began defending Palestinian rights

(3) Ad hoc barriers against professor booking classrooms

Starting in 2006 and every semester until the 2009 wrongful dismissal of Denis Rancourt, the dean of the Faculty of Science, the chairman of the Department of Physics, the VP-Governance and the President interfered in numerous and coordinated ways to frustrate and block my various bookings of classrooms for extra help sessions, workshop time related to scheduled courses, and a weekly documentary film and discussion series (Cinema Politica). Unprecedented administrative barriers were applied and ultimately the weekly film and discussion series was outright barred using the false pretext that I was an outside group and that these activities were not part of my professional service to the community, despite a dean’s earlier (2006) written confirmation to the opposite. The same series was then allowed to be scheduled by a colleague who agreed to act as the guarantor of the classroom for Cinema Politica renamed Cinema Academica.

(4) Illegitimate directives on grading methods

Since 9/11 there has been increased collaboration between university administrators and police. Professor Denis Rancourt held his foot in the door of his laboratory for more than three hours to resist the encroachment of the police state onto his and his student’s academic freedom

In December 2005 the dean of the Faculty of Science in writing arbitrarily forbade professor Rancourt from using the satisfactory/not-satisfactory (S/NS) grading method, claiming that this was not allowed. The dean went on to send a memo to all faculty staff reaffirming his claim that professors did not have the discretion to use the S/NS grading method. A labour arbitration award (Michel G. Picher arbitrator; June 25, 2008) established that my use of the S/NS grading method was protected under the purview of my academic freedom. In addition, a union association grievance caused the university to declare the dean’s December 2005 memo to all staff retracted and without standing (February 2009 settlement). The University never apologized for or repaired its violation of my academic freedom regarding these grading directives.

(5) Overturned discipline for “subverting” course

Following the successful completion of professor Rancourt’s fall-2005 Physics and the Environment course and despite a signed September 2005 agreement with the university that it would allow the course to precede in the manner planned by professor Rancourt and the students, the dean of the Faculty of Science nonetheless disciplined me for having attempted to “subvert” the purpose of the course. The discipline was grieved and the grievance went to labour law arbitration. In a precedent-setting award (Michel G. Picher arbitrator; June 25, 2008), the arbitrator found that “… the major change being with respect to the pedagogical innovation of independent group studies, the involvement of the students themselves in identifying areas of interest and the introduction of the satisfactory/not-satisfactory grading system. The Arbitrator is satisfied that those pedagogical initiatives were legitimately within the purview of the academic freedom enjoyed by Professor Rancourt …” A law journal review of the arbitration was entitled “Teachind Science Through Social Activism is Protected by Academic Freedom, Abitrator Rules” (College and University Employment Law E-Bulletin, February 2009, Issue No. 23).

(6) Failed attempt to discipline for “anti-Semitism”, hyperbolic claim

In November 2005 the dean of the Faculty of Science in several letters falsely and boldly claimed anti-Semitism based solely on a campus Jewish student association’s (Jewish Student Association, JSA) complaint about a guest speaker, himself a professor, in one of Rancourt’s classes. The accusation was that the guest professor had shown a map of the Middle East from a web site (having articles critical of Israel) that the JSA considered anti-Semitic. Despite the obvious concocted nature of the JSA claim aimed at attacking the guest professor, the dean went after Rancourt. Following a grievance, the university in a September 2009 settlement agreement retracted and declared void all of its letters of allegations in the matter.

(7) Failed attempt to discipline for critical comments

Also in November 2005 the dean of the Faculty of Science in several letters pursued Rancourt under the threat of discipline to retract critical statements Rancourt had broadcast about the lack of fundamental understanding of physics concepts by teachers and teacher assistants at the University of Ottawa — as part of Rancourt’s broad explanation of his pedagogical methods in a course which the dean was attacking (Physics and the Environment, fall-2005). Following a grievance, the university in a September 2009 settlement agreement retracted and declared void all of its letters of allegations in the matter.

(8) Condoned campaign of defamation and intimidation

In the two-year period 2006-2007 the dean of the Faculty of Science and the university administration condoned repeated and sustained unethical, defamatory and libellous attacks (approximately 100 incidents) against professor Rancourt by Chairman of Chemistry Alain St-Amant. These attacks included several derogatory broadcasts about Rancourt’s courses and an unsubstantiated claim in the media that one course was replete with anti-Semitic content. St-Amant also publicly insulted and belittled students who were openly supportive of Rancourt’s courses. Following many student complaints against St-Amant, a grievance, and several letters to the administration, St-Amant was ordered to stop only in late 2007 and this was confirmed by a letter from the dean to Rancourt dated November 6, 2007. Professor St-Amant was never made to correct his many false broadcasts or to apologize to students and Rancourt. No reparations were ever made.

(9) Covert information gathering campaign, 2006-2008

In the period 2006-2008 the university organized and operated a broad campaign of covert information gathering against professor Rancourt and several students. It hired a student journalist for this purpose. The student took on a false Facebook identity to integrate student groups and also reported on live student political campaign meetings and governance meetings directly to the dean of the Faculty of Science and the university Legal Counsel. The covert campaign included gathering voice recordings, obtained under false pretexts, of professor Rancourt’s talks on other campuses, as far as British Columbia. Weekly reports were provided by the student reporter, as shown in access to information documents. The matter is extensively documented thanks to access to information (ATI) results. The teacher assistant union grieved the covert campaign and struck a pre-arbitration settlement. The university has to date continued to illegally refused to proceed with professor Rancourt’s grievance about its covert campaign.

(10) Abuse of process to intimidate and suppress

In 2007 the dean of the Faculty of Science improperly used his right to call informal information meetings with an employee as a device to make several aggressive face to face interrogations with the purpose of applying discipline in relation to ridiculous charges including: (1) making me responsible for a statement in a third party press release, (2) that there had been improper course content in my fall 2006 Science in Society course (in the absence of any investigation), and (3) that I had hired an unqualified non-student to do specialized scientific research about environmental nano-particles. Charge (3) was dropped without an apology and never resurfaced after the dean’s intimidation sessions. Charge (1) led to a disciplinary reprimand that would make a professor responsible for what others, in a press release, say he said and that is demonstrably false. The latter discipline is grieved by the union and awaits arbitration. Charge (2) led to a disciplinary reprimand (without due investigation) in which the choice of invited speakers in the course was argued to be inappropriate. The latter discipline is grieved by the union and awaits arbitration.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

(11) Abusive letter alleging mental wellbeing concern

In September 2007 the dean of the Faculty of Science sent me a disturbing letter expressing without explanation that “The University of Ottawa has developed some concerns regarding your physical and mental wellbeing.” An access to information request and appeal documented that the dean first alleged to the IPC (Information and Privacy Commissioner) that he had acted alone in this matter based only on informal conversations with an undisclosed number of unidentified colleagues and that there were no respondent records; whereas on appeal to the IPC a large number of respondent records established that the disturbing letter had arisen from a broad covert process with several university executives and staff.

(12) Violation of academic freedom, research project denied

In 2007 I was barred from offering a research project course about “politics and ethics in the physics profession”, in violation of established practice for research project courses and in violation of academic freedom. The course was not allowed on the schedule and students were barred from registration.

(13) A plan develops to focus on grades as a pretext for dismissal

In November 2007 the dean of the Faculty of Science imposed a disciplinary reprimand for high student grades in a winter-2006 introductory physics course, without any investigation and based solely on the university-approved grades being higher than in previous years. This late and fabricated charge, following university (department and faculty) approval of the high grades, is now used as supporting discipline for the 2008 grades pretext used in my dismissal (see below).

(14) Failed attempt to silence by lawsuit intimidations

In 2007 my “U of O Watch” blog was attacked using several threats of libel lawsuits against me, two students and a student newspaper. The threats of lawsuits came from the University of Ottawa VP-Resources Victor Simon using the BLG law firm directed in Ottawa by Marc Jolicoeur who, at the time, was President of the university’s Board of Governors (BOG). The university and Mr. Simon objected to documented blog posts showing that Mr. Simon had altered a document and fraudulently used the altered document and that the President argued that this was acceptable because Mr. Simon “was trying to make a point”.

(15) Unjustified barring from all large first-year-level courses

In 2007 I was barred from all the first-year (introductory-level) science and physics courses that I had developed and always given, including the unique courses Science in Society and Physics and the Environment. I was barred from all large classes and assigned only small advanced physics courses. This was done without explanation and caused much added re-scheduling efforts for other professors. The Science in Society course was the result of significant student effort to have it approved and it was only ever offered once (fall-2006).

(16) Illegitimate use of copyright law to violate academic freedom

In 2007 I received a disciplinary reprimand and in 2008 I was disciplined by unpaid suspension for using images from the university’s web site on my “U of O Watch” blog which is critical of the university. An administrative directive allows images from the university web site to be used by professors “solely for the positive promotion of activities related to the University”. The administrative directive is a violation of academic freedom and is thereby void. All the images and many more remain on my blog and have not led to further attempts of discipline or legal challenges despite the university’s initial charge from Legal Counsel that it “may take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its intellectual property rights.”

NOTE: June 2008 is the start of Allan Rock’s first mandate as president of the university.

(17) Summarily removed from all teaching

In 2008 I was barred from all teaching using the pretext of an on-going “investigation” into the student grades to the 23 students in one course of the winter-2008 semester. Despite being a tenured professor, I was never allowed to teach any courses after the winter-2008 semester. I was not allowed to practice my profession until the university’s fast-track dismissal of me in 2009.

(18) Bogus attempt to remove graduate supervision credentials

In 2008 I was subjected to an orchestrated campaign to remove my membership in the school of graduate studies, using criteria (bogus administrative technicalities) other than the only accepted criteria (of research supervision and research expertise) for membership in the school. Irregularities in the planned fast-track removal of my credentials caused the campaign to be delayed and it could not be completed before the 2009 dismissal. My eight graduate students and post-doctoral fellow rejected the campaign and affirmed my qualities as a supervisor and researcher.

(19) Violation of academic freedom in undergraduate research project supervision

In 2008 I was barred from supervising or co-supervising a research project course about “the influence of advances in human thought (all disciplines) in the development of physical theories” because it was ruled – based only on a title and short promotional description to prospective physics students – to not be a “physics” research project. A registered physics student keen to pursue this course was improperly deregistered by the university to prevent the course from being offered by any professor.

(20) Violation of academic freedom in supervising planetary warming physics research

In October 2008, while I was a tenured and full professor and a leading scientific researcher in several areas of science including environmental science, the dean of the Faculty of Science covertly intervened at high levels within the university to bar me from supervising research in my chosen research area of the physics of planetary warming processes. As a result, a prospective scholarship physics graduate student was barred from applying to my research group. This was only discovered after the University was ordered (IPC Order PO-2909-I) on appeal to release a key access to information record.

(21) Illegitimate sudden lock out of all researchers from the laboratory

In November 2008 all my research graduate students and post-doctoral fellow (eight persons supervised by me) were ejected and locked out of my laboratory of 22 years for which I was legally responsible, without any forewarning or explanation. Only a four-hour physical standoff with my foot in the door and surrounded by Ottawa Police, campus police and a union representative produced a union-negotiated agreement that the university would explain itself at a mediation meeting the following week. The university provided a bogus excuse based on a “radiation security policy” that was being developed and agreed to re-open the laboratory. On re-entering the laboratory it was found that essential research materials (radioactive sources) for which I was legally responsible had been removed, again without notice or explanation, thereby blocking all scientific experiments.

(22) Unannounced summary dismissal of research associate of 12-years

In November 2008 my post-doctoral fellow (research associate) of more than 12 years was summarily fired and locked out of her office and my laboratory without notice or explanation. She sued the university and (by settlement) this produced her legal fees, a cash reparation, and a letter of apology/explanation.

(23) Arbitrarily barred from campus under threat of police arrest

In December 2008, while I was a full and tenured professor with outstanding 22-year research and teaching record, having developed several of the most novel and popular graduate and undergraduate courses in the Faculty of Science and having obtained some of the largest research funding awards in the Faculty of Science, I was summarily barred from all campus grounds and facilities under the threat of police arrest and accompanied off campus by campus police, with the pretext given that it had been recommended to the Board of Governors that I be fired for attributing high grades in one course from the winter-2008 semester.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

(24) Coercion and blackmail for graduate students to change supervisors

The latter barring from campus was accompanied by a university campaign to coerce the resisting graduate students to immediately abandon me as their research supervisor and accept alternative supervisors, under the pretext that I had been suspended from my supervisory role and all administrative duties. Several students filed lawsuits (later abandoned for reasons of cost) and unresolved/on-going internal complaints about the heavy handed intimidation (such as threats of loss of scholarship) to abandon their supervisor.

(25) Illegal barring from allowed venues using Ottawa Police force

The December 2008 barring from campus was explicitly extended to bar me from my weekly campus radio show (since 2005) at the studio legally occupied by the CHUO 89.1 FM corporation and explicitly extended to bar me from the weekly public documentary film and discussion series that I hosted continuously for many years (2005-2009), in an auditorium where the legal occupier was a colleague who had duly reserved the space. In January 2009, while I was still a full and tenured professor, the university had me arrested, handcuffed and removed by Ottawa Police for attending the film and discussion series, improperly using the charge of “trespass”. The charge was abandoned at trial on the second hearing date before the judge.

(26) Violation of natural rights to a fair process

In January-March 2009, during the required process following the December 2008 recommendation for dismissal, several violations of process and natural justice were perpetrated by the university, including: (1) demanding student examination copies as alleged key evidence followed by refusal to consider this evidence when provided under duress, and (2) refusal to admit and consider duly submitted written submissions to the Board of Governors for making its final dismissal decision. These process violations compounded the fact that, using its ad hoc pretext of fraudulent grading, the university systematically refused to duly investigate or consider the pedagogical context of my grading method; my teaching was never investigated by a committee of my peers or by any of the process steps foreseen in the procedural rules for tenured professors.

(27) Public defamation, interference and bias

During the January-March 2009 period, in an atmosphere of intense local, national, and international media attention in the dismissal process, the university ignored its often stated position that it cannot bias or harm on-going legal processes by making public comments, and released two press communications (still present on its web site; one was modified after first release) that attacked my professional reputation. In addition, high-ranking executives of the university (including the President) have made various inappropriate written statements siding with the university position and commenting on the process.

Among the main protagonists of the persecution of Professor Rancourt, moreover, has been the former member of the Canadian parliament Allan Rock, who was appointed as the President of the University of Ottawa in June 2008. Rock had just emerged from the inner sanctum of the Canadian political class after having served as Canada’s Minister of Justice and then as Ambassador to the United Nations. Rancourt has listed a number of illustrations of Rock’s allegiance to the pariah state of Israel rather than to the principles of truth and justice:

“Allan Rock’s ardent support for Israeli policy is evidenced both in his political career and in his actions on campus as president at the University of Ottawa: In 2004, under Martin’s Liberal government and as Canada’s Ambassador to the UN, Allan Rock changed Canada’s longstanding foreign policy on Israel from abstaining on human rights resolutions for Palestine to being one of the few countries in the World that vote with the US and Israel against UN human rights resolutions for Palestine. In July 2008 the media reported that Allan Rock participated in a trip to Israel “partly financed by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA)”, along with five other Canadian university presidents. The media reported that Mr. Rock’s visit “yielded immediate results” as “the University of Ottawa agreed to launch an exchange program in law.”

As Canada’s Ambassador to the UN, Allan Rock changed Canada’s longstanding foreign policy on Israel from abstaining on human rights resolutions for Palestine to being one of the few countries in the World that votes with the US and Israel against UN human rights resolutions for Palestine

After a few months in office, President Allan Rock announced his plan in October 2008 for the University of Ottawa. This plan included what he calls putting “Canada’s University in the service of the World”. In explaining it to students on October 24, 2008, he talked about exchange programs. When one student asked if Palestinian students would be allowed to participate in the exchange programs with Israel, Mr. Rock stated that he could not answer that. In the fall of 2008, the University of Ottawa chapter of the independent student-run Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) took a principled stand in line with its mission statement and refused to sponsor a Hillel event due to that organization’s stated unqualified support for Israeli policy.

Allan Rock responded by pressuring the student union (SFUO) president to write a letter condemning OPIRG. A letter from the SFUO president delineated the administrative relationships between the SFUO and OPIRG and this letter was made public by Allan Rock on his president’s “Rock Talk” blog. Allan Rock also publicly stated that he would look for an “administrative” mechanism to deny OPIRG student-levy funding (which has been approved by a student referendum). In 2009 the Rock administration banned a student poster announcing Israeli Apartheid Week – a move widely criticized in some media such as the CBC and in the student media.”

Far too many academicians, alas, are willing to accept blood-money to study everything and anything that poses no challenge the ongoing genocide of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East. Indeed the persecution of Denis Rancourt had a great deal to do with him inviting Palestinian speakers into his classroom, as he explains in this talk on Academic Freedom. As Rancourt has observed,

“I would sum up the real reason for my being fired as follows: as part of the Activism course I dared to invite Palestinian speakers into the classroom and as a result of that the controlled local newspaper wrote a very damning editorial of that event in the classroom and after that, in terms of the chronology, I was removed from all first year teaching and eventually from all teaching.

“And so if you look at the chronology of the events, every time I spoke out in criticizing Israel, or gave a venue with regards to the Palestinian problem there were repercussions that followed immediately all the way up to my dismissal. . .that I believe is the real reason that I am being fired.

“The firing involved student spies, professional reporters being hired to come and tape record and write reports on my talks that I gave at other universities. I know this from Freedom of Information Requests. . . My research associate of 12 years was fired. . . . My graduate students were removed, I was not allowed to book rooms. You name it they did it. ”

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Professor Kenneth Westhues of the University of Waterloo has appropriately described Rancourt as having been victim of “administrative mobbing”, a subject on which he has recently published a book, Winning, Losing, Moving On: How Professionals Deal with Workplace Harassment and Mobbing (2006). “Is this a case of workplace mobbing in academe? Yes — and more precisely, administrative mobbing” writes Westhues.

What we appear to have here turns out to be a form of academic lynching for a brilliant professor whose commitment to truth overrides his tolerance for political correctness, especially in relation to Israel and the Palestinians, for which he has been paying a very heavy price, a gross violation of his rights and a black stain on the reputation of the University of Ottawa – compliments of a former Canadian “Minister of Justice”.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on The War on Truth: Defending Palestinian Rights Can End Your Career

Obama Assassination Said to be Legal Under Israeli Law


Israeli Right to Kill President Supportable

 by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

How Subservient Must a President Be to Avoid Lobby Death Threats?

Last week, an obscure publication in Atlanta issued what seemed to be a “suggestion” that the Israeli government “eliminate” President Obama for “reasons of state.” 

The argument made by an Andrew Adler, owner of the Jewish Times, a publication nearly a century old, has stirred much controversy?

Our question is, was Adler right in what he said?  Can Israel legally kill a president?

Point one, of course, Israeli law allows it.  Obama is a non-Jew and any non-Jew can be killed at any time according to Israeli law, even one living outside Israel if it is believed that he may some day cause harm to a Jew.

This is the legal basis for attacks on children in Gaza, that their deaths likely prevent them from growing up and harming Jews.

It is in the Torah and it is law.  Also, America has traditionally respected such laws.  In fact, President Obama may well have, through pro-Israeli statements, authorized his own execution.

Point two, American law including not only the Patriot Acts but the recent modifications of our constitution added to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 specifically authorize the use of deadly force if necessary should anyone, anywhere in the world, including US citizens, no exception made for the President of the United States, constitute or be believed to constitute a threat through support of or dialog with terrorists.

We have proof that President Obama has authorized dialog with the Taliban.  In doing so, his signature on the NDAA has him signing his own death warrant.

Adelman and Newt – With the Koch Brothers Waiting to Spring the Tea Partiers

Point three establishes Israel’s need to kill Obama.  The only possible Republican opponent of Obama is the utterly unelectable Newt Gingrich, serial philanderer and slimeball.

Recently, Shelden Adelson, billionaire casino boss gave Gingrich, laundered through a PAC (political action committee) $5 million.  This money is, as we understand it, a down payment on a much higher figure meant to buy Gingrich’s thralldom to the Israeli Likudist faction.

As we understand it, Gingrich will allow Israel to stage a false flag nuclear attack on Chicago and, if needed reinstate the draft in order to put together sufficient land forces to invade Iran.

Following this, the world will suffer a series of pandemics, which will be, in reality, germ warfare, with miraculous cures coming online in time to hold world population at approximately 2 billion.

It will be a new “black death.” This is the why, the deindustrialization of the west, the genetically engineered disease delivery systems, the failure of all currencies and institutions as they no longer will matter.

They no longer matter now, as seen by those who look on themselves as being from “on high,” most of us are simply walking corpses anyway, the living dead who don’t know enough to fall down.

This is also why Gingrich and his close backers adhere to apocalypse rhetoric although Gingrich himself is an atheist.

This is Some ‘Preparing the Minds’ Work We Found on the Net – That Obama Deserves to be Killed as a Mortal Threat to Israel

The interesting point about Obama is how he fell into the trap so easily.  Once one authorized rendition, one also legalizes the use of lethal force.  One cannot exist without the other.

Every time Obama or others doft the “beenie,” the yamuka, they admit their own doom, the death of the goyim who is no longer of use to the Jew as stated in the King Torah.

When the most despicable of the abuses of the Torah are then carried into American law and applied as “counter-terrorism” acts, kidnapping, detention and murder without accountability, the idea of an American president being cited for extermination by a Jew as being an offense enters the realm of absurdity.

If Adelman says Gingrich must win and for Gingrich to win, Obama must die, and opposing Adelman and Israel, or defying Gingrich is also “offending the word of g-d,” the the punishment of he who has no name is applied, as law states, with full righteous vengeance.

To a sane person, all this must seem strange.

So an American who studied history, to a veteran who has fought in wars, these concepts of world domination, murder on command and erasing billions of people must seem beyond offensive, in fact they sound insane.

One might ask what kind of person might think this way.

Bush and Buds – Yep, They Got Him to Wear it, too.

Of recent years, these are the political theories of Henry Kissinger and George Herbert Walker Bush.

The Jewish part was thrown in to raise a few bucks, silence the liberals by dividing the Jews and to provide a stage for world conquest.

Without being able to blame Iran, there could be no new enemy.  Without the obsession with Israel, the idea of caring what Iran does or does not do seems meaningless.

Iran is harmless.

So, why then must Obama die?  What does it prove?

This is the question.  In a world of powerlessness, can one man, one even so low as an American president, still make a difference, still alter history, still stop plans from moving forward?

Is this what Andrew Adler of the Atlanta Jewish Times telling us as a spokesman, continually denied by fellow Jews, but spokesman all the same, telling us?

Andrew Adler

If killing Obama is an answer to some then is crushing Gingrich the answer to saving the many?

If plans run deep as we suspect, billions to die, a planet cleansed of its human population as though they themselves were a disease, plans that show themselves only an inch under the surface, bio-weapons, chemical poisons, carefully engineered economic realignments for a world devoid of people, a world of workers and oligarchs, the obvious direction of so many years, can these plans be turned?  Is destruction of humanity inevitable?

Are we really just cattle?

Once it was said that when mankind began playing with the atom he had sealed his doom.  Oppenheimer had a quote involving “destroyer of worlds.”  He did have a flare for the dramatic.

Yet out we go with a whimper, as opposed to Oppenheimer’s “bang.”

We are legislating ourselves out of existence, passing laws against our own futures, our lives, so much more than simple freedoms. We have legislated the freedom to live into the hands of those we will never know.

Posted in USAComments Off on Obama Assassination Said to be Legal Under Israeli Law

Shoah’s pages